14 December, 2011

Higgs looking like-lier

In complete disagreement with my last post, it turns out that scientists at CERN might have actually found the Higgs boson. Separate experiments have independently confirmed the existence of something 'Higgs-like' at about 124-126 GeV:

Gianotti and Tonelli led two separate teams – one using Cern's Atlas detector, the other using the laboratory's Compact Muon Solenoid. At their seminar yesterday one team reported a 2.3 sigma bump in their data that could be a Higgs boson weighing 126GeV, while the other reported a 1.9 sigma Higgs signal at a mass of around 124GeV. There is a 1% chance that the Atlas result could be due to a random fluctuation in the data.

Read More...

25 November, 2011

Higgs looking unlikely

The search for the Higgs boson has apparently entered the 'endgame'. As I mentioned a few months ago, the mass/energy ranges in which Higgs was expected to be found have all but been ruled out. Since then, as this article in the latest edition of Nature explains, the searches in lower and higher mass ranges have been unsuccessful. The last remaining possibility is that the Higgs is lurking somehwere between 114–141 GeV.


Data from this range has been collected and is currently being analysed:

The answer to the Higgs question lies in the data now being crunched at CERN and other academic-computing centres around the world. The first 70 trillion or so collisions turned up intriguing Higgs-like decays in the ATLAS and CMS experiments, hinting at a particle of around 140 GeV (see Nature 475, 434; 2011). But the second batch of collisions showed nothing. If the collisions now being analysed show further evidence of Higgs decays, then the teams on the two experiments are likely to announce that they have found a tentative signal, to be firmed up in 2012. If not, the search will probably continue until the LHC is shut down for an upgrade at the end of next year.

Of interest, several prominent physicists were asked for their opinion as to whether Higgs will be found. Opinions differed (click image for larger and clearer version):

Read More...

24 October, 2011

Web of debt

The New York Times have "Chart[ed] the web of debt exposure among sagging economies"


Read More...

15 October, 2011

What a square

I've been reading a bit about magic squares. That is, a square consisting of an arrangement of numbers, such that the numbers in all rows, all columns, and both diagonals sum to the same constant.

Probably the most impressive of these has to be Durer's Square, which is shown below:


The orientation of the numbers 1-16 in this square show an amazing about of magic-square-like properties. In total, the addition of the numbers in 86 different spatial orientations add up to 34.


Fascinating.

Read More...

18 September, 2011

Yes!


Ireland 15 - 6 Australia

Read More...

13 September, 2011

Foul play reported at show by psychic Sally Morgan

On Sept 11th, while psychic Sally Morgan was displaying her amazing abilities in the Grand Canal Theatre in Dublin, several of the audience (who had paid 40 quid a ticket) reported that they heard a strange voice at the back of the room relaying information to her.

They told their story to Joe Duffy on RTE radio (12th Sept show):

Sue went to see psychic Sally Morgan last night in the Grand Canal Theatre. She was great in the first half but during the second half Sue began to hear somebody talking loudly at the back of where she was sitting. She thought it was somebody heckling but she soon realised that everything he said Sally was repeating on stage. He would say a name like David and she would repeat it onstage. Other callers who were also at the show tell of similar experiences.

At the very least, it seems that a few believers are now skeptical of Sally's professed psychic abilities. One woman reported that while she was queing at the end of the show to get a book signed, the woman in front of her asked Sally about one of the names she was calling out during the show. The woman in question had realised too late that this name was relevant to her. Shockingly, Sally allegedly dismissed the grieving woman, who had forked out €40 for the ticket and presumably another sum for a book, saying that she was finished relaying messages for the evening. In other words, give me your money and get lost. End of story.

It's sad that even some of the women that called into the radio show, who heard the man relaying information to Sally, still think she is a genuine psychic and cares about her grieving audiences. There is only one thing that Sally and her staff are interested in - I'll leave it up to you to work it out.

Of course, that 'voices in the head' are used as part of a psychic's show is not a new discovery. They've been doing it for years. Most famously, the faith-healer Peter Popoff was exposed as use this technique by James Randi back in the 1980s. This incident is detailed in the below video, in which he also embarrasses Uri Geller on the Tonight Show.



Sally Morgan be warned.

Read More...

01 September, 2011

Don't worry

Here is the ultimate problem-solver...



(Source)

Read More...

27 August, 2011

How many complex species are there on Earth?

About 8.7 million.

And how many have we found to date?

About 1.2 million.

That is according to a recent study in PLoS Biology:

Knowing the number of species on Earth is one of the most basic yet elusive questions in science. Unfortunately, obtaining an accurate number is constrained by the fact that most species remain to be described and because indirect attempts to answer this question have been highly controversial. Here, we document that the taxonomic classification of species into higher taxonomic groups (from genera to phyla) follows a consistent pattern from which the total number of species in any taxonomic group can be predicted. Assessment of this pattern for all kingdoms of life on Earth predicts ~8.7 million (±1.3 million SE) species globally, of which ~2.2 million (±0.18 million SE) are marine. Our results suggest that some 86% of the species on Earth, and 91% in the ocean, still await description. Closing this knowledge gap will require a renewed interest in exploration and taxonomy, and a continuing effort to catalogue existing biodiversity data in publicly available databases.

Here is a table from the paper (click to enlarge) showing the vast difference in the numbers of catalogued and predicted species, which really highlights how little we know about life on our planet (particularly in the ocean).



An interesting calculation made in the study was the approximate cost and man power it would take to catalogue all of the species that are currently unaccounted for:

Considering current rates of description of eukaryote species in the last 20 years (i.e., 6,200 species per year; ±811 SD; Figure 3F–3J), the average number of new species described per taxonomist's career (i.e., 24.8 species, [30]) and the estimated average cost to describe animal species (i.e., US$48,500 per species [30]) and assuming that these values remain constant and are general among taxonomic groups, describing Earth's remaining species may take as long as 1,200 years and would require 303,000 taxonomists at an approximated cost of US$364 billion.



On the subject of species diversity, here is a nice 'tangled bush' image (click to enlarge then zoom in):


Read More...

23 August, 2011

Skeptical Twitter community brings down internet spammer

See here for an excellent summary of the history behind the recent arrest of internet spammer and sender of death threats, Dennis Markuze (aka David Mabus).

The kook pictured below has spammed the inbox of hundreds of skeptical bloggers for years, starting off with relatively harmless verbal diarrhea, but becoming more and more sinister in recent times. His downfall came when he moved his tirade of abuse to Twitter, following which he (presumably unknowingly) began to harass the Montreal police department. The skeptical Twitter community then launched a petition to get the Montreal police to investigate Markuze. It worked. He was arrested and now faces 16 separate charges, and is currently undergoing a 30-day psychological evaluation.

What a moron.


Read More...

22 August, 2011

Still no Higgs

Apparently the Higgs boson has not been found in the energy range predicted to be most amenable to its detection, casting doubt on its existence. The search now moves to lower and higher energy ranges, in which Higgs is less likely to be found.

According to James Gilles, the director of communication for Cern, it is now that the real work starts.

"In some mass areas, the Higgs is much easier to see than in others so in some mass areas it was always going to be easier to find it or exclude it quite quickly," he told BBC News.

"And now what we're being left with is the harder part; the regions where it's harder for us to see and harder to pick out the signal from the background."

The ranges left after these results suggest that the Higgs is either quite a light particle, below about 145 GeV, or a heavy one, above 466 GeV. A couple of islands in the middle, around 250 GeV, have not been fully excluded yet.

Read More...

29 July, 2011

Ploughboy sinks to a new low

The amazingly ignorant and obtuse commenter called Martin (aka Ploughboy) on the Premier Christian forums consistently infuriates a lot of people with his antagonistic commenting style. See here for a long and frustrating exchange I had with him about transitional fossils.

Now he has pretty much sunk as low as possible. He made this particular comment on the topic of the innocent people (mostly children) who were murdered in the recent Norwegian massacre:

So stop worrying about those who have died, they have received what they deserved, worry about yourself, that you might not receive what you deserve.

What an incredible asshole.

I'm glad to say that all commenters, both Christian and non-Christian, have responded to tell him so. To make it worse, some of the commenters he continues to insult and bicker with are currently in Norway experiencing the tragedy firsthand.

Read More...

28 July, 2011

The end of SETI - as we know it

That's right. According to the latest edition of Nature, Californian budget restraints mean that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is to come to an end.

If further funding is not secured, this means that all 42 radio dishes of the Allen Telescope Array in Hat Creek Radio Observatory will be shut down and possibly dismantled.




The melancholy vista at Hat Creek makes it easy to entertain equally melancholy thoughts about the SETI enterprise itself. It's the ultimate in high-risk, high-payoff science, pursued by only a handful of passionate researchers. In 50 years of searching, they have turned up nothing — and they can't quite shake an association in the public mind with flying-saucer sightings and Hollywood science fiction, all of which is so easy for cost-cutting politicians to ridicule that any substantial federal funding for SETI is impossible. Private support for the search is getting tighter because of the global recession. And many of the pioneers who have championed the search are now well into their 60s, 70s or 80s.

It's a sad thought that SETI might soon be gone, because althought they have been scanning the skies - without success - for 50 years, they have literally just begun. As Jill Tarter, head of the search programme at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, puts it:

...giving up now would be like dipping a cup into the Pacific Ocean, finding nothing but clear water and declaring, 'the oceans have no fish'

So what next?

According to the article, although SETI itself might officially be shut down, the search for extraterrestrial life will go on regardless. A website called SETIstars.org has been set up to try and raise some basic operational money - this seems unlikely to succeed though given the current worldwide economic pressures. A more plausible approach that is being considered is to simply cut back and do smaller scale studies with the help of SETI enthusiasts around the world who might have access to the appropriate equipment - sort of a SETI equivalent of the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPs).

Either way, I think it's inevitable, and important, that the search will go on - albeit in a different way.

Read More...

22 July, 2011

The good, the bad and the ugly of Lyme disease treatment

Treating human disease is difficult for a number of reasons, not least the fact that patients have preconceptions about what treatments they want to receive. If a doctor prescribes a certain medication, and the patient - in full knowledge of the facts - decides not to take it, then there is not much more that the doctor can do. A case in point is highlighted in the March 2011 edition of Nature Reviews Rheumatology, specifically in a Case Study article entitled: "A case revealing the natural history of untreated Lyme disease".

In this article, a rheumatologist named Robert T. Schoen recounts the story of a patient he had who was determined to use a combination of acupuncture and homeopathy to cure her Lyme disease, a condition brought about by a bite from a tick of the Borrelia genus. Although the alternative treatments occasionally gave her some relief from her symptoms (the placebo effect - alive and strong), her Lyme disease, and painful arthritic episodes, kept coming back.

But still, she refused to take antibiotics:

The rheumatologist confirmed the diagnosis of Lyme arthritis and prescribed amoxicillin (500 mg, three times daily for 28 days) to hasten the resolution of the current episode of arthritis and to prevent subsequent flare-ups. The patient initially agreed to take this treatment and to return at the completion of antibiotic therapy. When seen a month later, however, she had not taken any of the prescribed antibiotic therapy.

Medically speaking, this was obviously not an ideal situation for the patient. However, through her refusal to accept the convential Lyme disease treatment, the disease was able to progress naturally over a period of almost 4 years - Lyme disease is usually treated successfully with antibiotics. This situation gave the doctors a unique opportunity to study how the disease progresses and, ultimately, determine how effective the conventional treatments are following such a long disease period.

Below is a timeline for the four years (click to enlarge). Symptoms are displayed above the timeline. The visits to the homeopath, acupuncturist and rheumatologist are color-coded and displayed below the timeline.


Notice how even the homeopath eventually admitted defeat and prescribed antibiotics for the patient - and she still didn't take them!

Eventually, after four years of failed alterntive treatments, the patient was in so much pain that she had confined herself to bed for a month. She relunctantly visited and listened to the advice of a rheumatologist and took a 30-day course of doxycycline. Six months later, she had no further arthritis and remained well.

Schoen concludes:

...patients who are not treated with antibiotic therapy are known to have recurrent episodes of oligoarthritis, often affecting the knee. Indeed, this Case Study demonstrates that Lyme arthritis, if untreated, continues to occur in a well-characterized pattern that can last for years. Furthermore, the arthritis in this patient is thought to have resulted from B. burgdorferi infection (in the absence of previous antibiotic therapy) rather than a postinfectious inflammatory process, and her condition was cured with a relatively short course of antibiotic treatment. The clinical identification of this increasingly uncommon long-term form of Lyme arthritis is important and appropriate management, even at this late-stage of disease, can result in gratifying treatment outcomes.

This case shows two things quite clearly:

1 - Even after four years of allowing Lyme disease to progress naturally, the patient was still successfully treated with antibiotics (the good)


2 - Acupuncture (the bad) and homeopathy (the ugly) are not effective at treating Lyme disease

The first point above bodes well for Lyme disease patients; conventional medicine can still be effective, even years after contracting the disease.

The second point simply serves as a warning to those who seek out unproven remedies for serious illnesses - do so at your own peril.

Read More...

12 July, 2011

Thunderf00t vs Westboro Baptist Church

Following his debate with Ray Comfort, and hot on the heels of Louis Theroux's recent revisting of the most hated family in America, Thunderf00t has posted an interview he conducted with some of the wackos from the Westboro Baptist Church.

Should be interesting!




From Thunderf00t's blog entry on the subject:

I had hoped to try and keep it all on a civilized, clear and logical level, but it became almost instantly obvious that this was a lost cause. The hostility of 'Meg the Eldar' was really something I was unprepared for. The volume, the amount, and the hostility in the pitch of her voice was that of a bitter, bitter woman. Like a dog that's been tormented daily till all it knows how to do is attack anything that comes within biting distance. The daughter, I had the feeling was only there for eye-candy, or was just there as a spectator so Meg the Eldar could show her how to properly hate something not of the cult. The daughter spoke softly and had it just been me and her we might have made some progress. She had a venomfangx look to her. Every argument had a 'memorized by rote' unthought through answer, but given time it might have been possible to untangle some of the mess. But alas, Meg the Eldar, from the very start was throwing in pointless insults at every opportunity, 'your nothing special' 'your country is worthless' 'your mother...' etc etc. Water off a ducks back for me of course, I've had more shit thrown at me than that before. Battle-hardened to the childish feces flinging :-) . Eventually, I decided that Meg the Eldar could not be allowed to streamroller the events by doing 90 % of the talking, only 5% of which was relevant, but when I accosted her about it she threatened repeatedly to leave.

Realizing that she essentially had the trump card of just walking out, I went for the 'Jesus endorses homosexuality' gambit.

It hit the spot, and they 'RAGE-QUIT'...

Read More...

15 June, 2011

Altruistic ape

In case anyone thinks that altruism is only a human trait, watch how the orangutan in the below video saves a small duck from drowning. The video was shot in 2008 in Dublin Zoo but has only recently appeared on the internet.




Since humans share a common ancestor with other apes, it makes sense that we should find supposedly 'human traits' in orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas (and we do). But what sense does this make in a Creationist worldview?


-----------------------------------------------

Edit: A copyright row has emerged from the above video going viral. It seems that the Daily Mail bought the clip from News Team International, and not from the original cameraman who actually owns the copyright. He'll surely get a nice few quid out of it now.

Read More...

08 June, 2011

Psychic wastes police time, as usual

It turns out there was no mass grave in Texas. Of course, the police had no choice. They have to follow up a 'lead' when it involves the possible murder of children, because if they don't and it turns out to be true, then there will be a massive public outcry. But I wonder, has a psychic ever actually been shown to have provided a significant case-solving piece of information?

No, according to this article:

What appears to be most annoying to police officers is that when crimes happen—especially high-profile crimes—psychics call in offering information—sometimes hundreds of them. Regardless of whether the information is even acknowledged, the psychic claims that the police consulted him or her on that case. This appears to have been the MO of more than a few famous psychics, whose cases numbered into the hundreds and thousands. How many they actually worked on, let alone were invited into, is anyone's guess.

Often on any given case, no two psychics agree, so which one is to be believed? Even if one is singled out, the information that psychics give is typically too vague and impressionistic to narrow down the field of search, and it looks impressive only in retrospect.

Joe Nickell asks psychics to step forward and solve the great mysteries, such as where is Jimmy Hoffa? Or who killed JonBenet Ramsey? So far, psychics have tried but none has succeeded.

Says debunker Gary Posner, who criticizes the lack of controlled studies of paranormal phenomena, "There has not been a single iron-clad case, bulletproof case that has been convincing."

In addition, no psychic has ever stepped forward to try for the million-dollar reward that James Randi's educational foundation offers (nor any other financial award from other agencies) for proving their psychic powers in controlled conditions. This certainly baffles the average person.

Thus far, a psychic's reliability for law enforcement has not been established. Anecdotal information is sometimes impressive and even surprising, but nothing can be concluded about using psychics as resources in solving a crime.

Read More...

01 June, 2011

Obama leaves his mark on Ireland

Literally!

In case you hadn't heard, Obama's indestructible, missile-proof, bullet-proof super car, nicknamed the 'Beast', met its match in the form of the ramp outside the US embassy in Dublin. Check the video below to see the beached Beast:





Well, I happen to walk past the very spot it happened every day, so I took some photos (click to enlarge)...



And a close up of Obama's mark...



Ha ha!!

Read More...

27 May, 2011

Sovereign Independent - much huff and puff but no substance

I became a member on Skeptic Ireland yesterday and upon reading a recent post there, my attention was drawn to the Sovereign Independent website - a real goldmine for conspiracy theories and New World Order nonsense. The co-editor is called Neil Foster and in this post he attacks an article in the Irish Independent (a real newspaper) by Ed Power which pokes fun at conspiracy theories. Here is an excerpt from Power's piece:

Spend just a few minutes on the internet and it becomes obvious we live in the golden age of conspiracy theories. From climate change (concocted by Al Gore and grant-hungry scientists) to September 11 (a CIA plot to stir up resentment against the Arab world) there is, it seems, a crank hypothesis for everything.

He provides a list of popular conspiracy theories including the JFK assassination, the origin of AIDS and even that Stephen King shot John Lennon! At the end of the article, Power mentions a few theories that actually did turn out to be true. These include the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study on black men conducted by the American government, CIA-funded propaganda during the Cold War, and finally the assertion that Ireland's economic problems were caused by a greedy cabal of bankers (this last one is obviously being referred to as a conspiracy theory tongue-in-cheekily, as it is widely known to be patently true)

And so, how did Neil Foster of the Sovereign Independent respond?

Well, he was angry. Very angry. In fact, such was his outrage at 'this piece of gutter journalism', I fully expected him to show us all how to critically analyse an article in a proper journalistic manner....

But no. As it turns out, Foster is the real 'gutter journalist' here. First of all, his article is littered with nasty rants using terms such as 'moron', 'comic book garbage' and 'junk fuelled buffoonery'. Hardly journalistic prose worthy of a Pulitzer, now is it?

Furthermore, Foster is livid at Power for not considering the mounds of 'EVIDENCE!' that support his Orwellian worldview of secret societies and Big Pharma cabals that are moments away from taking over the world. Oh, and the word EVIDENCE! is always capitalised - don't you know that's a sign of a reputable journalist.

And what EVIDENCE! does Foster present?

Firstly, on the subject of Osama Bin Laden he begins with John Hill, who produced the 'Ripple Effect' DVD supposedly showing that the London 7/7 bombers were tricked into getting the tube by the UK government so that their movements could be caught on CCTV and the bombings later pinned on them. Indeed, according to Hill, the innocent young men were supposedly murdered in Canary Wharf and never made it to the site of the bombings. Foster claims that Hill and his crank theories were vindicated in a court of law:

I wonder if [Ed Power is] any relation to Peter Power, the lackey, or accomplice in the 7/7 London Bombings which interestingly are not mentioned in this hitpiece. I wonder if that’s got anything to do with the FACT that a jury found 10 to 2 in favour of John Anthony Hill recently in his ‘Ripple Effect’ trial?

'In favour of' Hill. Hmmm... This ambiguous sentence seems to be implying that a jury vindicated Hill's beliefs that the London 7/7 bombings were orchestrated by the UK government. I guess Foster has proved his point.

Oh no, wait. On closer inspection, Foster is simply manipulating the truth here. What a surprise!

All of Hill's nonsense was, of course, thoroughly debunked and indeed Hill was shown to simply be a bit of a loony - it has even been alleged that he claimed on his website to be the Messiah, and he also claimed that George Lucas was told the script of Star Wars telepathically by The Force. Following completion of his DVD, Hill sent it out to the judge and jury foreman in a trial linked to the attacks. For sending the DVD to people directly involved in the trial, Hill was arrested for perverting the course of justice. Indeed, it was this charge for which the jury found in his favour - that he didn't pervert the course of justice - but they most definitely did not endorse any of the claims in his conspiracy theory DVD, which is what Neil Foster is clearly trying to imply as EVIDENCE! to support his article. He truly is a beacon of journalistic honesty, this Foster chap!

The next piece of EVIDENCE! put forward by Foster is to support his claim that Osama Bin Laden was already dead prior to the recent announcement that US troops had killed him. The extent of his EVIDENCE! actually just turns out to be a 2007 interview by Benazir Bhutto in which she claims he is dead. Never mind the fact that she clearly implies in an interview a week later that he is, in fact, alive (she goes as far as saying that 'Osama Bin Laden is rubbing his hands in glee as he as he looks at what's happening in Pakistan'). Foster's EVIDENCE! amounts to cherry-picking whatever he likes from the internet to support his preconceived ideas. His mind is clearly muddled by confirmation bias.

This is the extent of the EVIDENCE! offered by Foster to support his claims, an irrelevant court decision and a cherry-picked comment, none of which he actually links to or presents references for.

But the final piece of 'gutter journalism' displayed by Foster is simply amazing. It turns out that he apparently can't even read. Here is what he has to say about the segment of Power's article on 'Conspiracy theories that turned out to be true' (Power's original words in bold, followed by Foster's response):

The American government conducted medical experiments on poor black men’… This is ADMITTED by the American government!

As is this… ‘The CIA Paid Journalists to Write Propaganda’ although the past tense shouldn’t be used because they still do it today! Try reading ‘Who Paid the Piper: CIA and the Cultural Cold War’ – By Francis Stoner Saunders.

But of course the whole hitpiece is designed to divert attention from the last ‘theory’ in your comic strip suggesting that it’s farcical to suggest that:
The Irish Economy Was Destroyed by a Cabal of Bungling Bankers, Incompetent Politicians and Sycophantic Regulators

I’ll add the words you deliberately left out in this line:
‘The Irish economy was DELIBERATELY destroyed by a cabal of CRIMINAL bankers, CORRUPT, TREASONOUS politicians and BOUGHT & PAID FOR ‘REGULATORS’

Look around the country Power and see the effects of this ‘conspiracy theory’ in every town and city in the country where people are losing their homes and businesses, bankers are raping the country, the IMF is taking the country and unemployment is now reaching pandemic proportions; a PANDEMIC deliberately released upon the western world by a criminal elite who are openly pushing for a world government to save us all from ourselves.

The day is coming very soon when those responsible for this corruption will be taken to task and those in the mainstream media, and the lackeys they use to try to attempt unsuccessfully, to discredit the truth, (are you listening Jamie?) will also be held accountable for their inaction in warning the Irish people on matters of great importance, destroying their lives and those of future generations.

That's right folks! In his rage, Foster ploughed straight into his vitriolic rantings without even realising that Power was clearly pointing out that these particular examples are, in fact, true.

Not only that, but he deleted my comment pointing out the above, along with two comments from a person called Jamie, from Skeptic Ireland, who also happens to disagree with him (Foster attacks Jamie in the article too). Freedom of speech obviously isn't a priority for the Sovereign Independent.

Two things Mr Foster:

1) Understand when something is being said in jest.

2) If you are going to accuse others of 'gutter journalism', in your response try not to use ad hominen insults, completely debunked EVIDENCE! and cherry-picked facts. Oh, and try to read the article properly and not delete dissenting comments.

Read More...

26 May, 2011

True Christians™ disagreed with Camping all along


(Source)

Read More...

04 May, 2011

Maths is beautiful

Don't believe me?

Watch these videos.

Fifteen uncoupled simple pendulums of monotonically increasing lengths dance together to produce visual traveling waves, standing waves, beating, and random motion.

For more see here




This is a wave pendulum designed using billiard balls, this device shows how 15 individual pendulum of different (but relative) lengths that have been adjusted to have successively increasing periods. When all the balls are released at the same time, the different periods cause the pendulums to cycle through all possible relative phase relationships, eventually returning to the beginning arrangement. When it cycles through it's phases, different wave patterns are noticed!

For more see here

Read More...

23 April, 2011

Who killed more in the Bible?

(Click to enlarge)


Source

Read More...

21 April, 2011

PhD - what's the point?

The latest issue of Nature has a few articles on the topic of PhDs.

'Reform the PhD system or close it down'
by Mark C. Taylor argues that many universities and academics essentially (if not purposefully) lie to undergraduates about their eventual career prospects in order to simply get 'free labour'. In this way, PhD students become nothing more than data generators who can be discarded and forgotten once they successfully graduate. I've seen this happen in my own career. Some academics have little interest in their students, other than what they can get out of them for their own benefit, i.e. publications. But their are others who do care. They allow the student to develop in their own time, which can take months or even years, but once that spark emerges they carefully nurture the student and encourage them to think laterally and critically about their chosen subject area.

As a side note, I am somewhat surprised that Nature invited Mark C. Taylor to write this article, given that he is a Professor of Religion in Columbia University. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people studying religion. But I think someone from a scientific discipline would have been more suitable. Indeed, the author even states the following:

[Universities] must design curricula that focus on solving practical problems, such as providing clean water to a growing population.

As noted by several of the commenters, how can a religion cirriculum achieve that? If it can't address practical problems, then lets get rid of religion PhDs.

---

The second article ('Seven ages of the PhD') is by a number of authors, each of whom completed their PhD in a different decade: Raymond Gosling 1950s, Cheryll Tickle 1960s, Steve W. Running 1970s, Yao Tandong 1980s, Andras Dinnyes 1990s, A. A. Osowole 2000s, & Erika Cule who is due to complete her PhD in 2012. Each of the authors gives a brief synopsis of their experiences during these years and compares to the current PhD climate.

Particularly interesting is the section by Raymond Gosling, who worked with Maurice Wilkins and later Rosalind Franklin at King's College London and is credited with taking the infamous first picture of the stucture of DNA.

Gosling says:
Randall's biophysics unit was a wonderfully energetic place to work. However, in those days relationships between staff and students were rather formal. All the men wore ties with their white lab coats, and the senior common room at King's was for men only...He told me that he didn't want to see my PhD until it was submitted — I can't imagine that happening nowadays.

Other notable quotes include:

Tickle (1960s):
Nowadays, PhDs are much more structured. Students are not given as free a rein as I was, nor are they allowed to make as many mistakes. There is a greater emphasis on acquiring data. Students also often work with others rather than alone. These differences reflect the changes over the past 40 years in the way in which research is carried out, and its growing pressures.

Running (1970s):
I finished my PhD in 1979, just before personal computers arrived. So it was written on a typewriter, with 53 hand-drawn figures. The subject of this labour of love was inducing water stress on 13 pine trees by cutting their leaves off and measuring desiccation responses. Looking back now, my PhD research seems highly esoteric. The work built fundamental understanding of leaf-scale physiology but had no policy relevance. The only practical value was in understanding why your Christmas tree turns brown. I think how innocent we all were then, doing weird science and looking for cheap beer.

Tandong (1980s):
I graduated from Lanzhou University in China's Gansu Province in 1978. At that time, the postgraduate system in China was immature. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), the whole education system was broken, and it was only after 1978 that the degree system was restored. There were probably only a few hundred PhD students in China.

Erika Cule (2010s):
The first draft of the human genome was published when I was still at school.

---

The next three articles comment on an increasingly problematic situation - the bottle neck that has emerged from a large number of PhD graduates and a relatively low number of academic positions. Alison Cook ('Education: Rethinking PhDs') recommends thinking outside the box, as opposed to just staying on the established treadmill of Degree-PhD-Postdoc-Academic position.

Here, Nature presents five approaches to shaking up the hallowed foundations of academia. They range from throwing scientists deep into independent study, to going interdisciplinary, to forgoing the PhD altogether.

1 Jump in at the deep end
2 Forget academia
3 Trample the boundaries
4 Get it online
5 Skip the PhD

All good options, but it ultimately depends on the person.

---

The fourth article, ('Education: The PhD factory') discusses PhDs on a country-by-country basis - some in which prospects for PhD graduates are on the way up, some on the way down, and some which are stagnating.

Japan, for example...

In some countries, including the United States and Japan, people who have trained at great length and expense to be researchers confront a dwindling number of academic jobs, and an industrial sector unable to take up the slack. Supply has outstripped demand and, although few PhD holders end up unemployed, it is not clear that spending years securing this high-level qualification is worth it for a job as, for example, a high-school teacher...

Of all the countries in which to graduate with a science PhD, Japan is arguably one of the worst. In the 1990s, the government set a policy to triple the number of postdocs to 10,000, and stepped up PhD recruitment to meet that goal. The policy was meant to bring Japan's science capacity up to match that of the West — but is now much criticized because, although it quickly succeeded, it gave little thought to where all those postdocs were going to end up.

Overall, the statistics seem to show that the benefits of doing a PhD are dwindling:


---

So...

PhD - what's the point?

The final article ('What is a PhD really worth?') by Peter Fiske sums up the whole situation for me:

...I believe the most important lesson is that no programme of higher education can guarantee its graduates gainful and lucrative employment. At best, a graduate programme in any discipline can provide its students with key skills, knowledge and abilities. How the graduates apply that learning is up to them.

I agree with this. For me, achieving the ability to think critically and laterally is the point to doing a PhD (whatever the discipline). It is just as important as the eventual career path. The ability to critically assess any given topic or situation is advantageous in any walk of life and is something that employers will recognise and actively seek out. A good PhD program will provide the environment for students to learn these skills, regardless of whether they gain direct employment from such a program.

At the end of the day, a PhD is a very personal thing. No-one should go into one lightly, but no-one should be afraid to pursue a PhD based on downstream career prospects. My philosophy has always been to try and work in a field that I am interested in. I have been lucky enough to live up to that so far, and part of that was gaining a PhD in molecular immunology. I would change things here and there if I could, sure; but I have no major regrets.

Read More...

20 April, 2011

Terminator vs Marty McFly

Where were you at precisely 8.11pm last night?

At home?

Dining out?

Running for a bus?

Wherever it was, remember it, because that's where you were the exact moment when the missile-controlling computer network Skynet became self aware, thus heralding the end of human civilisation as we know it. That's right. Arnie-shaped Terminators and other gloopy shape-shifting bad guys are gonna be all over the place soon, so watch out.




On the plus side, it's only 1,635 days until Sunday, 11 October 2015, when Marty McFly will arrive and take all the Terminators down in a hilarious scenario involving hoverboards and a big pile of excrement. Join the party here!


Read More...

11 April, 2011

Law of Non-Contradiction

I don't necessarily take the position that the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't hold, but I also don't necessarily accept a common refutation of this position, which involves reductio ad absurdum. That is, when someone says "if the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't hold, then it does hold, doesn't it?". The reason I don't accept this is two fold:

1) The refutation takes the form of reductio ad absurdum and attempts to use proof by contradiction. Essentially, the contradiction that is presented is that you are both right and wrong at the same time, meaning the argument is reduced to absurdity. However, the emergence of a contradiction does not refute the position that the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't hold, because the very nature of this position allows for contradictions.


2) In applying proof by contradiction, the refutation already accepts that the law of non-contradiction holds in order to show that it holds. Thus, the argument is circular and so doesn't refute the original position.


I have blogged about this subject before, and am currently in the middle of a conversation about it with John Fraser (JF) on the Premier forums, which I present below the fold. It started by JF sharing this anecdote about his philosophy professor:

JF: My seminary philosophy professor (a student of Plantinga's) had a standard response when some smart-alec in the back would try to dispute the law of non-contradiction (usually with some kind of half-baked appeal to quantum theory like what you guys are doing). He would say, "well, then I'm right, aren't I?" How can you contradict that (having already denied the law of non-contradiction)?

.
.
.

Rhiggs (RH): Perhaps I'm missing something, but can someone please explain why a legitimate answer to John Fraser's oft mentioned philosophy professor can't simply be...

"Well, then you're wrong, aren't you?"

...seeing as the professor, in order to give his response, has accepted the student's proposition that the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold? That is, under the terms that the law doesn't hold, if he's wrong he's actually right (as he states). but it also means that if he's right he's actually wrong. As I see it, the back and forth could go on like this ad infinitum, without actually affiriming either position.

.
.
.

JF: Earth to Rhiggs: the point of the statement is to show that BY THE STUDENT'S OWN STANDARDS he has no way to object that the professor is wrong. Get it? It's not an admission by the professor that the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold!

This is a form of reductio ad absurdum. In a reductio argument, the one making the reductio does not have to accept the conclusion of the argument he is trying to refute - rather, he shows that it leads to an absurdity.

.
.
.

RH: I know that he is not admitting that the law of non-contradiction fails, but in order to show that the student's argument leads to absurdity, he has to show what happens when the law fails. In order to do this, his argument relies on adopting the student's position.

That is, he is really saying, "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then I'm right, aren't I?". But the student can just turn this back on the professor and say "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, a position you needed to adopt in order to make your point, then you're wrong, aren't you?". The point being that the professor's argument itself is also reduced to absurdity. I'm not saying the student is correct in the first place, but that the professor's response isn't sufficient to refute it.

In addition, the professor is simply showing that if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then it leads to contradictions, and thus absurdity. But of course it does - that is the very claim! By using the emergence of contradictions, the professor is using the law of non-contradiction to show that the law of non-contradiction holds, which seems circular.

.
.
.

JF: Rhiggs,

That is, he is really saying, "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then I'm right, aren't I?". But the student can just turn this back on the professor and say "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, a position you needed to adopt in order to make your point, then you're wrong, aren't you?".

Well, he could say those words perhaps. The problem is, in saying this he's saying that the professor is NOT right, but he's already denied the law of non-contradiction. But in saying, "then you're wrong, aren't you?" he would be AFFIRMING the law of non-contradiction - unless he wants to say that the professor is both right and not right about the same point. So actually this would be playing exactly into the trap which the professor has set for him. He can't deny the professor's claim to be right, he could only add another claim, namely that he is not right. And then he can try to affirm that those two propositions are perfectly compatible. But that would be sheer nonsense as even the befuddled student would hopefully be forced to realize.

In addition, the professor is simply showing that if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then it leads to contradictions, and thus absurdity. But of course it does - that is the very claim! By using the emergence of contradictions, the professor is using the law of non-contradiction to show that the law of non-contradiction holds, which seems circular.

The problem is much deeper than that. It means the law of non-contradiction is necessary even for the student to make any claims about the law of non-contradiction. Note that I'm not saying that this proves the existence of God (a'la presuppositionalism) - just that in denying the law of non-contradiction, you are essentially denying the ability to deny anything. And yes, that is absurd. You might as well say, "I deny the truth claim that says that a truth claim can be denied." It's as self-referentially incoherent as saying that there are no absolute truth - which is itself an absolute truth claim!

.
.
.

RH: Let me be clear here. I'm not agreeing with the student, I'm just disagreeing with the professor's refutation.

But in saying, "then you're wrong, aren't you?" he would be AFFIRMING the law of non-contradiction ...

I don't see how this is so in two different ways. If he says the professor is wrong, then he is denying the law, not affirming it, as the professor's position is that the law holds. Also, he is denying the law by the very act of claiming that the professor's position is both right and wrong at the same time.

...unless he wants to say that the professor is both right and not right about the same point

Which is exactly the point. The student could say this if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold. He could say the same about any statement, even his own. The professor might claim that this reduces the student's argument to absurdity, but in doing so he is relying on proof by contradiction, i.e. it is absurd because you can't be both right and wrong.

This fails for two reasons:

1) Showing the emergence of a contradiction does not refute the student's position, as this is his position, that contradictions are allowed.

2) In applying proof by contradiction, the professor is already accepting that the law of non-contradiction holds in order to show that it holds. His argument is circular and so doesn't refute the student's position.

just that in denying the law of non-contradiction, you are essentially denying the ability to deny anything. And yes, that is absurd.

As I see it, by denying the law of non-contradiction, you are actually allowing for any particular thing to be both denied and affirmed at the same time, not just denied. I agree that it is absurd - in that it is of no apparent practical use to humans - but it is not refuted using the professor's method due to the reasons presented above.

Interesting topic.

.
.
.

JF: Rhiggs,

I don't think you get the point of the refutation. Sure, the student could take the position, "you're both right AND wrong, as am I, because I don't believe the law of non-contradiction holds," but then even as he says this, he is implicitly affirming that the law of non-contradiction DOES hold - otherwise he would not be able to say the law of non-contradiction DOESN'T hold. Get it?

So actually his statement would have to be modified to, "you're right and wrong just as I am right and wrong because the law of non-contradiction both does and does not hold." But hopefully the light will come on at some point and the student will realize that this is all just sheer nonsensical gibberish with no content or truth value whatsoever.

.
.
.

RH:

I don't think you get the point of the refutation.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you're right, I don't get it. By the student's standards, if the law doesn't hold, anything that anyone says can mean what they say and the opposite all at once. It's absurd! But I still don't see how it has been refuted. The professor is simply applying the law to refute the denial of the law, and that is just circular.

Sure, the student could take the position, "you're both right AND wrong, as am I, because I don't believe the law of non-contradiction holds," but then even as he says this, he is implicitly affirming that the law of non-contradiction DOES hold - otherwise he would not be able to say the law of non-contradiction DOESN'T hold. Get it?

No. Why does the student, by his own standards, need to implicitly affirm the law in order to deny it?

So actually his statement would have to be modified to, "you're right and wrong just as I am right and wrong because the law of non-contradiction both does and does not hold." But hopefully the light will come on at some point and the student will realize that this is all just sheer nonsensical gibberish with no content or truth value whatsoever.

You say that the student's position is gibberish because of the multiple contradictions that arise, but that still doesn't actually refute the student's position due to my points above about why the professor's refutation is flawed.

Firstly,
- The student's position is that contradictions are allowed
- The professor's refutation is that the student's position leads to a contradiction (you can't be both right and wrong at the same time)
- But this fails, because the student's position is that contradictions are allowed (if the student is right, then he most certainly can be both right and wrong at the same time)

Secondly,
- The student's position is that contradictions are allowed
- The professor's refutation relies on proof by contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), which requires the law of non-contradiction to hold
- Thus, the professor is assuming that the law holds in order to show that the law holds
- The professor's argument is circular and, therefore, is not sufficient to refute the student (pointing out a logical fallacy with the use of another logical fallacy isn't very impressive)

If you can address these two points then I might be convinced.

.
.
.

JF: Rhiggs,

If you can address these two points then I might be convinced.

You're really making me earn my paycheck on this one. Oh, wait, I do this for free. It just feels like a job sometimes.

You want me to address these "two" points - with 3 and 4 subpoints, respectively?

Probably this won't work after everything else I've already said, but basically the problem is this. You keep considering the whole thing from the standpoint that the student's position is that contradictions are allowed. Right? The problem is, as the professor shows, the student's position also leads to the conclusion that contradictions are NOT allowed. So are contradictions allowed or aren't they? You can't just say, "well, that's a contradiction but it doesn't matter because contradictions are allowed," because by his own position contradictions are NOT allowed. You have to apply the rule at the meta-level, not just the sub-level. In other words, you can't just apply the student's rule to everything below the level of the rule itself, because it also has to apply to the rule.

The point of all of this, hopefully, is that the student will see his position leads to a situation which even he doesn't find desirable. That his position amounts to nothing more than meaningless word games and makes it impossible to talk about anything coherently. He could, I suppose, just say, "why talk about anything coherently?" The problem, though, is that in saying that the law of non-contradiction does not obtain, he presumably takes himself to be saying something coherent. If he isn't, then who cares?

.
.
.

RH: As I suspected, you are still simply saying that a contradiction disproves the position that contradictions are allowed. This would be a perfectly acceptable way of disproving most positions, but not this particular one due to the very nature of what is being claimed. Put simply, proof by contradiction cannot be used to prove the law of non-contradiction, or to disprove its negation. In doing so, you are saying nothing more than it's wrong because it's wrong.


So are contradictions allowed or aren't they?

This is where you are going wrong. You can't just decide the answer to this and then subsequently apply it to the problem, because this is the very thing that is being debated. Your approach is completely circular.


You have to apply the rule at the meta-level, not just the sub-level. In other words, you can't just apply the student's rule to everything below the level of the rule itself, because it also has to apply to the rule.

That is exactly what I am doing. I am applying the position that 'contradictions are allowed' to every level in this. If the rule holds, then it both holds and doesn't hold, so any apparent disproof is not a disproof at all, because the position implies that the rule both holds and doesn't hold at the same time, and of course it also doesn't imply that! Call the position nonsense or gibberish or meaningless word games if you like, but that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the refutation, which I still contend is flawed.

.
.
.


Read More...

28 March, 2011

Thoughts on some recent Premier debates

Last week I listened to three debates, all of which were hosted by Premier. Actually only two of them were debates (Alistar McGrath vs Stephen Law and Sye TenB vs Paul Baird), while the third was actually just William Lane Craig discussing a previous debate he 'kind of' had with Richard Dawkins.

Anyway here are my thoughts on all three. I list them in chronological order...


1) William Lane Craig discussion (audio here)

The gist of this program was that Craig was reporting on a debate he had with Dawkins in Mexico entitled 'Does the universe have a purpose?'. In fact, it was more of a panel vs panel debate, but this program mostly focused on the exchanges between Craig and Dawkins. Craig's main point throughout the program was that there is objective purpose in the universe, but the atheist worldview can only ever create illusory subjective purpose - e.g. I will be a great parent, I will learn how to play the guitar, etc. Craig agrees that everyone can create these types of purpose, but that they are ultimately transient and imaginary, unlike the real objective purpose that theists are privy to. Strangely, throughout the hour-long program, Craig never actually tells us what this real objective purpose is. He just keeps stating that it's there.

The irony, of course, is that he is labelling the only real purpose that we know exists (i.e. individual goals and objectives that we all have, including Craig) as being imaginary, while at the same time he contends that some unexplained and unproven transcendental purpose (which is almost certainly imaginary) is the only real purpose in the universe.

How strange.



2) Alistar McGrath vs Stephen Law (audio here)

This debate meandered over a number of topics with the usual wordy 'I'm-going-to-completely-change-the-subject' non-answers from McGrath. The first part that particularly interested me was when McGrath said that problems with any worldview arise when a claim is made that 'we are right' and 'you are wrong', and this can include both atheism and theism. Law pointed out that claiming you are right is fine, as long as you respect the right of your opponent to be wrong. It is when a person or movement becomes authoritarian that problems arise - i.e. when they say not only 'we are right', but also 'and you have to agree with us or else'.

The closing section of the debate saw Law in the driving seat as he pinned down both McGrath, and the host Justin, with his argument that we could all be worshipping the wrong God. Why can't it be an evil God? There is good and evil in the world, and yet most theists presume that God is good, and that any evil in the world is due to the 'fall of man'. The flip side, explained Law, is that perhaps God is actually evil, and so any good in the world is due to the fall of man from evil. He points out that even though nobody really believes this, it is equally as plausible and, crucially, is not defeated by any of the classical arguments for the existence of God as they are all neutral to the question of whether God is good or evil. Its quite a clever argument, and McGrath's response boiled down to 'God reveals himself and gives people comfort'. Law responded to say that evil spirits often reveal themselves to people, who are subsequently put on medication. For more on this intriguing argument see here.



3) Sye TenB vs Paul Baird (audio here)

Here we had Round 2 of the debate on presuppositional apologetics (PA) between Sye TenB and Paul Baird. In the first debate it was quite clear that Sye was not actually going to talk about the subject of the debate, but instead give a demonstration of it. It was refreshing, therefore, to see that this second debate was actually on the subject of PA and, tellingly, Sye was on shaky ground from the start. Paul brought up several criticims of PA, none of which were effectively dealt with by Sye.

One example was when Paul 'switched hats' and agreed to accept Sye's argument up to a point. Even if we accept that a God is the precondition to truth, logic, knowledge, etc, how do we get from there to exclusively the Christian God? Sye tried his best to evade this question with another 'how do you account for x, y and z' merry-go-round, but it was obvious that even Justin wasn't impressed with his non-answer after non-answer. Paul is uploading a transcript of the whole debate, and this part is especially telling:

Justin: I mean, essentially, this is again, picking up something Rolf Wolfram said to you in response to that show, Sye, he said "It's a circular argument because it presupposes the truth of the Bible" so, I think this all comes down to same point. What's the basis on which you presuppose the truth of the Bible over anything other belief system for this apologetic?

Sye: Well, for a start, if an unbeliever asks me a question like this, this is my response to Paul, "Pizza sleeps fast under the twice"

[pause]

Justin: Hmm. Ok

Sye: That's my response to Paul.

Justin: I understand that for Paul, you're saying that without laws of logic, denying those sorts of things, denying a God upon which those sorts of things rest, he can't get anywhere. But I suppose it's how do you move him from that to Christianity...

Note that Sye evaded answering Justin's question and last time I checked, Justin is not an 'unbeliever'. The criticism still stands, regardless of whether anyone can or cannot account for logic. That everyone except Sye can see this glaring flaw in his argument shows how deeply entrenched, and perhaps deluded, Sye really is. As I've said before, I think many people give Sye too much credit - he's nothing more than another Ray Comfort with an insatiable appetite for attention and publicity.

Read More...

22 March, 2011

The merry-go-round that is a debate with Peter Chen

Below is a copy of a lengthly debate I had with Peter Chen on (among other things) the origins of reasoning, which took place on the Premier forums back in October last year. My argument was that reasoning could have evolved side-by-side with self-awareness, while Peter is a strong proponent of the 'God-did-it' hypothesis. I read it again recently and am posting it here now just so that I can keep a record of it. As you can see, his debating style is quite frustrating as he never seems to respond to a point or question with a straightforward answer, but just keeps repeating the same jumbled presuppositionalist rhetoric. On the contrary, I feel as though I honestly addressed his points as patiently as I could (although I admit at times I can appear quite impatient). The debate actually starts off by me quoting Sye, so I have included his initial comments too.

Me: Black
Sye: Red
Peter: Blue
Notes in bold


[I begin by quoting Sye...]

"The knowledge claim of an unbeliever is automatically refuted."

Here's my knowledge claim then: "Presuppositionalism is correct" Automatically refuted I guess...! Sye is so 'not' a div...


.
.
.

Yawn. The claim to know is automatically refuted. Watch: Rhiggs, how do you know that presuppositionalism is correct?

.
.
.

I was just responding to your statement Sye, which was: "The knowledge claim of an unbeliever is automatically refuted."

Is the following a knowledge claim or not? "Presuppositionalism is correct"

.
.
.

Are you saying that you know for certain that presuppositionalism is correct?

.
.
.

Yawn. Just answer the question. Is the following a knowledge claim? "Presuppositionalism is correct"

Yes or no?

.
.
.

Depends.

.
.
.

You really like to drag things out, huh? In what case is "Presuppositionalism is correct" NOT a knowledge claim?

.
.
.

[No response from Sye, he doesn't like it when you use his own words against him - see here for further examples - so Peter takes up the reins. Note: All spelling is original]

.
.
.

rhiggs,

I think Sye was getting at, he is able to make knowledge claims, and atheist are not.


.
.
.

Right, so you're saying that I can't make a knowledge claim. Is that correct?

.
.
.

No, you do[So now I can make a knowledge claim, even though he just said I can't!!??], but you don't have the meaningful reason to.

.
.
.

I do. I do what? Have the ability to make knowledge claims? You said earlier that I am unable to. You're not making much sense.

And I have many meaningful reasons to make a knowledge claim - one of which is to participate in a conversation with other intelligent beings.

.
.
.

"I do. I do what? Have the ability to make knowledge claims? You said earlier that I am unable to. You're not making much sense."

It is easy enough to follow. What you do is not the same as what you have the basis to do. Like the dif. between what you "can" and what you "may" do. They are not the same. .
[Huh? So I "can" make knowledge claims, but I "may not" make knowledge claims!!??] Thus, what you do do is not the same as what your worldview gives you the basis to do.

"And I have many meaningful reasons to make a knowledge claim - one of which is to participate in a conversation with other intelligent beings."

But how is reasoning meaningful in your worldview? Does your worldview make sense of your ability to do so? The point is that you do not, though you do it. That is the inconsistency.


.
.
.

"Thus, what you do do is not the same as what your worldview gives you the basis to do."

Yes it is. We're talking about knowledge claims. I can make knowledge claims. The basis for me making these is that I acquire knowledge and then make a claim about it. Just because you wish to ascribe an unproven wishy-washy transcendental precondition to knowledge, which you label a 'basis', makes no difference.

"But how is reasoning meaningful in your worldview? Does your worldview make sense of your ability to do so? The point is that you do not, though you do it. That is the inconsistency."

My worldview has axioms, just like yours does. Reasoning is axiomatic. Any attempt to disprove this must use reasoning. Reasoning is also an axiom in your worldview. You could not have arrived at God (or anything else) without it. Your attempt to position God as a precondition to reasoning is a cheap trick to try and insert an unproven premise into an argument. God is your conclusion, which you have arrived at using the same axioms we all use. God is not your presupposition. If you claim that God is the precondition to reasoning, then belief in God is unreasonable by default.

.
.
.

Let us move it over.[i.e. Let me ignore what you said and keep repeating the same thing]

"The basis for me making these is that I acquire knowledge and then make a claim about it."

How is that even an explanation of what I asked??? Which was: Thus, what you do do is not the same as what your worldview gives you the basis to do.

"Reasoning is axiomatic."

You may want to have axioms in your worldview, but how does impersonal, mindless, matter in motion account for those axioms?

You don't know what you are talking about when you are talking about my worldview. I am the one who states what my worldview is and what it is not, and you do not have the ability to.
[Wait! Now I apparently can't make knowledge claims again...]
... and you show no sign of the ability to do so, nor even seam to have the simplistic understanding of it.

Instead of attacking, maybe you are willing to learn about what you are attacking first? I don't mind to take a little time to teach you about Christianity and what worldview is all about. But if you don't care for it, we can keep going as normative on here of mindless attacks and meaningless talks that is not really worth the time to write back. I think that is why Sye left the conversation, being a much smarter man than I.

(Note that I will not always be back here that fast. I maybe gone for a few days. I don't have that much time with these talks. I have a very busy life, as you have.)


.
.
.

"How is that even an explanation of what I asked??? Which was: Thus, what you do do is not the same as what your worldview gives you the basis to do."

Erm, that's not a question.

"You may want to have axioms in your worldview, but how does impersonal, mindless, matter in motion account for those axioms?"

They don't have to. That's why their called axioms. They are self-affirming.

"You don't know what you are talking about when you are talking about my worldview. I am the one who states what my worldview is and what it is not, and you do not have the ability to... and you show no sign of the ability to do so, nor even seam to have the simplistic understanding of it."

Sigh. And yet you seem to be telling me all about what my worldview can or can't do. Hypocrite?

[Sye re-enters the fray here and we go off on a tangent. See here if you are interested. I'm going to stick to the discussion with Peter]

.
.
.

"They don't have to. That's why their called axioms. They are self-affirming."

Do rocks have axioms? IF not, then what are preconditions to have axioms? And what preconditions account for those axioms?

"Sigh. And yet you seem to be telling me all about what my worldview can or can't do. Hypocrite?"

Ignorance. I am not telling you, but asking you.


.
.
.

"Do rocks have axioms? IF not, then what are preconditions to have axioms? And what preconditions account for those axioms?"

The concept of a rock has axioms. An axiom is valid if it is self-affirming, such as the axioms of truth, reason, logic, etc.... God, however, is not axiomatic in that God is not needed to disprove God. You need axioms, such as truth, to even conceptualise and give meaning to God. If truth is not needed as a precondition to God, then God is automatically not true (because the concept of truth is absent). We all use a range of axioms to arrive at conclusions, just as Christians do to arrive at the concept of God.

"Ignorance. I am not telling you, but asking you."

Really? You said both:

"No, you do, but you don't have the meaningful reason to."

and

"The point is that you do not, though you do it."

They both sound like you're telling me what my worldview can or can't do.

.
.
.

You evaded my point: Do rocks have axioms? IF not, then what are preconditions to have axioms? And/or what preconditions account for those axioms?[Note: Peter requests that I address his points]

Sure I can tell you what I think of your worldview too.


.
.
.

"Do rocks have axioms?"[1]

No. The concept of a rock does though.[Question 1 answered]

"IF not, then what are preconditions to have axioms?"[2]

Axioms apply to conceptualisation and reasoning, so I suppose those are examples of preconditions for something having axioms.[Question 2 answered]

"And/or what preconditions account for those axioms?"[3]

As I said, they just have to be true, as shown through self-affirmation. This means that they are required to disprove themselves, hence they are automatically proven to be true. Take the concept of truth for example. Any disproof of truth would itself have to be true, thus truth is axiomatic. No further account or basis is needed for truth. The same can be shown for logic, reasoning, knowledge, etc... We all use these axioms as tools for reasoning. Presuppositionalist Christians use these very tools when they attempt to insert a deity, and indeed a whole worldview, in the place of these tools with no justification other than circular reasoning that could be used to insert any other deity in its place.[Question 3 answered]

If you disagree, please provide an account for your God without using the concepts of truth, logic, reasoning, knowledge, etc. This should be possible if they are not preconditions for you conceptualising and even being aware of your God>[And here is my request to Peter. Will he address it?]

"he is able to make knowledge claims, and atheist are not."
"No, you do, but you don't have the meaningful reason to."

"I am not telling you, but asking you"
"Sure I can tell you what I think of your worldview too"


Consistency isn't a strong point of yours, eh Peter?

.
.
.

"Axioms apply to conceptualisation and reasoning, so I suppose those are examples of preconditions for something having axioms."

So even according to you rationality/reasoning is precondition for Axioms. What is your metaphorical basis for rationality/reasoning?

Context.


[Oh dear! My request to Peter is ignored]

.
.
.

"So even according to you rationality/reasoning is precondition for Axioms. What is your metaphorical basis for rationality/reasoning?"

No, you've completely misrepresented what I said. Something needs to be applicable to conceptualisation and reason for it to be subject to axioms, so a rock doesn't have axioms but the concept of a rock does. Axioms themselves don't have preconditions other than they just have to be self-evidently true (as I already explained).

This isn't a one-way conversation Peter. I'm not here to simply provide answers to your questions ad infinitum. It's your turn to answer something. After all, you are the one accusing me of evading your statements, even though I have answered them all. Now, please address this (which you clearly evaded):

Please provide an account for your God without using the concepts of truth, logic, reasoning, knowledge, etc. This should be possible if they are not preconditions for you conceptualising and even being aware of your God.

.
.
.

That is right, you have been evading the one main question I have been asking you and you keep running from.[Huh?]

I asked you: Do rocks have axioms? IF not, then what are preconditions to have axioms? And/or what preconditions account for those axioms?[All of which I answered. See above]

You answered: "No. The concept of a rock does though."

I did not ask you about the humans concept of rocks, but the precondition for axioms.[Which I answered. See above]
You admit that a rock does not have axioms. Thus I wrote: So even according to you rationality/reasoning is precondition for Axioms. What is your metaphorical basis for rationality/reasoning?
[Ah, so Peter just wanted to ask more questions. Of course this doesn't mean that I evaded his earlier questions, although he keeps claiming that I did. As you can see, this gets me a bit frustrated in my next comment]

.
.
.

OK you're verging on being a troll now.

"That is right, you have been evading the one main question I have been asking you and you keep running from."

What are you talking about? Who is running here? I've answered your questions several times. You are the one running Peter.

NO, ROCKS DON'T HAVE AXIOMS

THE ONLY PRECONDITION FOR AXIOMS IS THAT HAVE TO BE SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE


"So even according to you rationality/reasoning is precondition for Axioms."

No, that is not what I said at all. I said conceptualisation and reason are preconditions for something to have axioms. They are not preconditions for the axioms themselves.

"What is your metaphorical basis for rationality/reasoning"
I don't need a metaphorical basis for rationality/reasoning. If you mean a metaphysical basis, I have already provided it. Reasoning is axiomatic.

Now, I've answered your questions several times over. If you are an honest person, and not simply a troll, you will address my request. If you're not interested in having a two-way conversation, then neither am I.

Address this please:

Please provide an account for your God without using the concepts of truth, logic, reasoning, knowledge, etc. This should be possible if they are not preconditions for you conceptualising and even being aware of your God.

.
.
.

"I said conceptualisation and reason are preconditions for something to have axioms."

And as I have asked: What is your metaphysical basis for reason? And you answered:

"If you mean a metaphysical basis, I have already provided it. Reasoning is axiomatic."

So, according to you, to have axioms one must be able to have reason. You claim "no" that rocks do not have axioms. It is axiomatic to you that rocks to not think[What? No. Where did I say that rocks not thinking is an AXIOM?], it is axiomatic to you that you think. Or to say it in a more clear way. It is self-evident to you that rocks do not reason.[Not at all. You reason to the conclusion that rocks do not reason. It is not self-evident. This guy clearly has no understanding of what an axiom is. He seems to think an axiom is just something that is an obvious fact]. You claim that it is self-evident to you that you try to reason. Not all matter/stuff think, you granted, then thinking is itself not self-existent in everything evenly. If you hold that you are just matter and rock is just matter, than why does rock matter on the ground does not think and brain matter in your head tries to think?

You may say that it is self-evident to you that you reason, but you distinguish thinking matter from nonthinking matter.[The thinking matter thinks, and the non-thinking matter doesn't] How do you account for this distention?

It maybe self-evident to you that you think, but why must it be logical thinking? I am asking about quality/valid thinking. You may at times laps in your thinking and may say things that are self contradictory, and/or just of the subject, wrong thinking/irrationality is a possibility. Therefore, there is the difference between logical think and illogical thinking. How do you account for logical thinking in your view of the world?

When you claim that it is self-evident to you that you think. It is not all that clear to me that you think. Even you do not know that another person around you is a thinking person. How do you account for your belief that other people around you are thinking people?

You asked:
"Please provide an account for your God without using the concepts of truth, logic, reasoning, knowledge, etc. This should be possible if they are not preconditions for you conceptualising and even being aware of your God."

You are asking me to do the irrational, much like asking me to square a circle. Without truth, logic, etc. I would not be able to write anything in response. However, your point is also not meaningful for my ability or inability does not matter as to the reality of God. God is objectively true,[Wait for it...] as evidence by objective truth, logic, etc. I know that God exist by the reality that I am a thinking and living person (just three of many reason, unaccounted for in materialism), and also I must presuppose God to know anything else.[Oh dear!] I don't believe that I am just a thinking brain with probes, but a living person with a both and senses that experience the world around me. But how does one go from the thinking self to the world around him/her? My ability to write you back is proof that God exist and fact that you are able to write me back is also proof that you and I are living in God's created world, and not an atheistic world of just impersonal irrational matter.
[i.e. God-did-it]

.
.
.

Peter,

I see you have moved on from your original questions on axioms and the preconditions for axioms, ignored my account for truth, logic, etc, and now want to discuss materialism. This has nothing to do with my arguments for why truth, logic, knowledge, etc are axiomatic. You have offered NO refutation of my basis for these concepts, and instead try to move onto to other tired generalizations.

"If you hold that you are just matter and rock is just matter, than why does rock matter on the ground does not think and brain matter in your head tries to think?"

Matter is matter. But the matter that we call ‘humans’ has evolved to a point that it is self-aware. The matter we call ‘rocks’ hasn’t. We have memories and can think, which involves conceptualizing and reasoning. Rocks don’t.

"You may say that it is self-evident to you that you reason, but you distinguish thinking matter from nonthinking matter. How do you account for this distention?"

See above

"I am asking about quality/valid thinking."

Erm, no you’re not Peter. This is the first time you’ve mentioned “quality” or “valid” in our whole conversation, so don’t lie as if you were asking about this all the time. I know what you ARE doing though. You are simply asking question after question, shifting the goalposts as you go. I’m not going to play your game. I’m not answering any more of your questions until you address my statements on the axiomatic status of truth, logic, knowledge, etc. I claim that I have provided an account for these concepts in my worldview, and that I had no need for your God to do so. Your eagerness to change subject suggests that you have no refutation of this.

Now, onto my request, which you eventually answered on the third time of asking…

I asked: ”Please provide an account for your God without using the concepts of truth, logic, reasoning, knowledge, etc. This should be possible if they are not preconditions for you conceptualising and even being aware of your God.”

"You are asking me to do the irrational, much like asking me to square a circle. Without truth, logic, etc. I would not be able to write anything in response."

Exactly, it is impossible because these concepts are required for you to conceptualise and even be aware of God, meaning they are your fundamental presuppositions. Do you admit that these concepts are preconditions for conceptualising and even being aware of your God? If not, my original statement stands.

"God is objectively true, as evidence by objective truth, logic, etc."

Erm, no. They are certainly not evidence that God exists. They are simply evidence that truth, logic, etc exist. However, if you are confident that this is a valid argument for the existence of God, please present it formally with premises and a conclusion.

"I know that God exist by the reality that I am a thinking and living person (just three of many reason, unaccounted for in materialism), and also I must presuppose God to know anything else."

Actually, you must presuppose truth, knowledge and logic to arrive at what you believe to be your presuppostion of God. In reality, God is a conclusion you have come to, not a presupposition. But I understand why you must confuse yourself into believing the opposite. However, if you are confident that this is a valid argument for the existence of God, please present it formally with premises and a conclusion.

"My ability to write you back is proof that God exist and fact that you are able to write me back is also proof that you and I are living in God's created world, and not an atheistic world of just impersonal irrational matter."

I am holding back the laughter here. However, if you are confident that this is a valid argument for the existence of God, please present it formally with premises and a conclusion.

What you don’t seem to realise is that you have just provided three examples of how you CONCLUDE (and not presuppose) that God exists. You made these conclusions based on 1) the existence of “objective truth, logic, etc.”, 2) the “reality that [you are] a thinking and living person” and 3) your “ability to write”. And in order to do so, you presupposed the concepts of truth, logic and knowledge because they are preconditions you need in order to make the conclusions you made.

You are refuting yourself Peter.

.
.
.

"I see you have moved on from your original questions on axioms and the preconditions for axioms, ignored my account for truth, logic, etc, and now want to discuss materialism. This has nothing to do with my arguments for why truth, logic, knowledge, etc are axiomatic. You have offered NO refutation of my basis for these concepts, and instead try to move onto to other tired generalizations."

No, you are saying that rational thought is self-evident without talking about the precondition for reason, the point of what Sye and I was talking about. There must be precondition for reason to be possible, let alone for one to know that one is thinking.[Says who? Peter? He cannot even comprehend, let alone refute, the possibility that reason evolved alongside self-awareness] Without a meaningful worldview, the claim of "it is self-evident" is not meaningful, for it is evidently true that rocks do not have reason.

"Matter is matter. But the matter that we call ‘humans’ has evolved to a point that it is self-aware. The matter we call ‘rocks’ hasn’t. We have memories and can think, which involves conceptualizing and reasoning. Rocks don’t."

All you have said is that matter in head is "changed" from the matter on ground. You said, "Matter is matter." What did matter changed into? Non-matter?[Again, Peter misquotes me and fails to summarise my point correctly]

Thus my point remains: You may say that it is self-evident to you that you reason, but you distinguish thinking matter from nonthinking matter. How do you account for this distention?

"Erm, no you’re not Peter. This is the first time you’ve mentioned “quality” or “valid” in our whole conversation, so don’t lie as if you were asking about this all the time. I know what you ARE doing though. You are simply asking question after question, shifting the goalposts as you go. I’m not going to play your game.

Maybe you don't understand that I was explaining my question: "It maybe self-evident to you that you think, but why must it be logical thinking? I am asking about quality/valid thinking." and continued onto explaining my point.

"I’m not answering any more of your questions until you address my statements on the axiomatic status of truth, logic, knowledge, etc. I claim that I have provided an account for these concepts in my worldview, and that I had no need for your God to do so. Your eagerness to change subject suggests that you have no refutation of this."

You don't have to answer anything you can't answer. You can end the talk now. I rather have many things I need to be doing as well.

I have not read anything of your worldview, nor your accounting for your claims. If you care to share it just copy and paste it here.[Wow! Just wow!]

"Exactly, it is impossible because these concepts are required for you to conceptualise and even be aware of God, meaning they are your fundamental presuppositions. Do you admit that these concepts are preconditions for conceptualising and even being aware of your God? If not, my original statement stands. ... Actually, you must presuppose truth, knowledge and logic to arrive at what you believe to be your presuppostion of God. In reality, God is a conclusion you have come to, not a presupposition. But I understand why you must confuse yourself into believing the opposite."

Let me just stick with my ability to think/reason. The fact that I am a thinking person is not the same as my fundamental presupposition of my worldview. It is the difference between Metaphysics and Epistimology. The latter is what you are confusing with the former. My first coming to know myself as a thinking self is not the same as my ability to account for myself being a thinking self. My ability to know myself as a thinking self is "first" in the sense of primary in order of knowledge, however my accounting for my ability to think is the "primary foundation" of my rationality[i.e. God-did-it]. What you are laking is a Metaphysics that account for your ability to think (if you have stated it, then again, please show it here.). All you have said so far is that you think rational thought is a fact, but why are you a thinking person given your worldview? How does your worldview explain, or is in conflict with that claim? That is the issue.

I wrote: God is objectively true, as evidence by objective truth, logic, etc.

You wrote: "Erm, no. They are certainly not evidence that God exists."

But that is the dispute is it not? All you are doing is stating your atheistic faith, that you don't believe God exist, but why do you believe that proposition?

"They are simply evidence that truth, logic, etc exist. However, if you are confident that this is a valid argument for the existence of God, please present it formally with premises and a conclusion. .. However, if you are confident that this is a valid argument for the existence of God, please present it formally with premises and a conclusion."

This is my simple case against your atheistic view (Sye may not take the same approach):

The materialistic worldview of only mindless impersonal amoral matter exist; humans are not irrational, impersonal, amoral; therefore materialism is a false worldview.

"I am holding back the laughter here. However, if you are confident that this is a valid argument for the existence of God, please present it formally with premises and a conclusion."

I think I have done more than enough explanation. If you don't have honesty of handling the issues, then I rather not waist my time. If you care to make a valid case for your worldview to gives you the basis for rational thought, then that is what you have to do. I don't have to present why that is not so (even though I did so above.).

"What you don’t seem to realise is that you have just provided three examples of how you CONCLUDE (and not presuppose) that God exists. You made these conclusions based on 1) the existence of “objective truth, logic, etc.”, 2) the “reality that [you are] a thinking and living person” and 3) your “ability to write”. And in order to do so, you presupposed the concepts of truth, logic and knowledge because they are preconditions you need in order to make the conclusions you made.

You are refuting yourself Peter.


Sure I presuppose reason, objective truth, etc. but I have a meaningful worldview where by these presupposition are meaningful[i.e. God-did-it]. Your worldview does not. If you think it does, then it is your job to prove it.

Can you move your response to the end and left? I know that it will be had to keep going back to just add comments to follow the next.


.
.
.

"...you are saying that rational thought is self-evident..."

Not necessarily. Rational thought exists, but not all thought is rational. As we are both human beings, any doubts you have about my ability to reason are equally as applicable to you, so be careful if you plan to go down this road...

"There must be precondition for reason to be possible"

Erm, reasoning is axiomatic.

"What did matter changed[sic] into? Non-matter?"

No. It’s still matter, but it has evolved to the stage where it can form a mental representation of its surroundings, have memories and conceptualise. I understand that you want there to be a transcendental requirement for this to occur, but this doesn’t mean there is. I suggest you read some neuroscience literature (see here or here for example) for an explanation of how matter can evolve in this way.

"I have not read anything of your worldview, nor your accounting for your claims. If you care to share it just copy and paste it here."

The axiomatic concepts I speak of are presupposed by everyone. Take truth as an example. It is literally impossible for you to conceptualise, imagine, speak of, worship, or presuppose your God (or anything else for that matter) prior to presupposing the concept of truth. If truth is not already established, then anything else you think of cannot be true by default. Thus truth is obviously presupposed FIRST. For you to then state that God is necessary for truth is pointless, as you have already had to presuppose and accept the concept of truth prior to even conceptualising God. You are simply adding an extra unnecessary and unjustified step. God is not a precondition for truth to exist, but truth is a precondition for God to exist.

The same can be said for a number of other axioms, such as logic and reason. So my ‘account’ for these concepts is simply that they are axiomatic. This does not mean that they are magical and need a transcendent creator in order to exist (indeed, there are theories of how reason can evolve through purely biological processes). If you disagree, you will have to prove this by providing an example of an instance in which they do not exist and account for your God in their absence.

"What you are laking[sic] is a Metaphysics that account for your ability to think (if you have stated it, then again, please show it here.)."

Reasoning is axiomatic and is a process that ‘brain matter’ uses to conceptualise and understand the world around it. Go and read the literature I linked to. Now you may not agree with the hypotheses contained therein, but you cannot say that I have not provided a metaphysical account for my ability to reason.

"All you have said so far is that you think rational thought is a fact, but why are you a thinking person given your worldview? How does your worldview explain, or is in conflict with that claim? That is the issue."

I have not necessarily said that ‘rational’ thought is a fact, but since irrational thought would not survive for long under selective pressure, rational thought evolves.

"All you are doing is stating your atheistic faith, that you don't believe God exist, but why do you believe that proposition?"

Because in my opinion the evidence does not support the proposition. You are free to disagree, but that does not mean you are correct. Oh and I'm still waiting for those formal proofs. Whenever you're ready please present them...

"This is my simple case against your atheistic view (Sye may not take the same approach): The materialistic worldview of only mindless impersonal amoral matter exist; humans are not irrational, impersonal, amoral; therefore materialism is a false worldview."

Erm, plenty of humans are irrational, impersonal and amoral, so your case fails miserably. Plus materialism can account for non-physical things, such as thought and reason. Again, I suggest you read some neuroscience literature.

"I think I have done more than enough explanation. If you don't have honesty of handling the issues, then I rather not waist my time."

On the contrary, I have handled all of your issues. The fact that you might disagree with what I say does not mean I’ve not honestly answered you. You have not yet refuted a single thing I have said and instead keep shifting the goalposts.

"If you care to make a valid case for your worldview to gives you the basis for rational thought, then that is what you have to do."

Erm, I have, and I've provided links. Scroll up.

"Sure I presuppose reason, objective truth, etc. but I have a meaningful worldview where by these presupposition are meaningful."

No you don’t. You have presupposed these concepts in order to conceptualise an unproven being, the existence of whom is in question, and then you CONCLUDE that this being is necessary for the concepts you have already presupposed.

Let me ask you this Peter. According to your worldview, what do you presuppose first – that God exists or that you exist? Which brings me nicely to my final request:

Please provide a proof that you exist for certain.

.
.
.

What??? Are you for real???

.
.
.

Wow! Convincing comeback!

.
.
.

I just don't want to waste my time with a person who is incapable to follow the talk.

.
.
.

A typical presuppositionalist excuse for leaving a conversation. You have not presented any proof of the existence of God (or even that you exist!), you have not refuted a single thing I've said, and you have shifted the goalposts at every opportunity. Your whole worldview is simply an argument from ignorance.......you can't understand how abstractions can exist in a materialist world, so God-did-it.

As Dawson Bethrick states here:

"The way I see it, is that you have two basic options. One, you can imagine that an invisible magic being takes care of all your worries in every department, be it conceptualization, induction, integration, understanding, or philosophizing. Or two, you can investigate the nature of man's mind in order to learn and understand how it works, to discover how he perceives, forms concepts, and integrates those concepts into higher abstractions. [...] I realize it's frustrating to those who want to point to an invisible magic being in order to "account for" things that have puzzled previous thinkers. But you know, there is such a thing as reality, and it's not such a bad thing. Man's mind is not incompetent, regardless of who disapproves."

.
.
.

rhiggs,

It seems to me that you don't have the ability to continue the conversation. I personal don't want to wait my time. But look, I understand how that may sound like I am making an excuse, but I really am not. I don't treat these talks as if I am trying to prove anything.
[Really? Then why make sweeping statements like this: "My ability to write you back is proof that God exist and fact that you are able to write me back is also proof that you and I are living in God's created world, and not an atheistic world of just impersonal irrational matter."?] I do it to sharpen myself to teach Sunday-school Every Sunday, [I sincerely hope that Peter does not inflict his own personal mishmash of presuppositional apologetics on those poor kids] and if it helps the person I talk with, that is great as well. I don't have ax to grind. I don't care for the kind of personal attacks that get past for conversation.[Why bring up 'personal attacks' here? I cannot see where I have made any personal attacks] I have a busy life with many things to do in my life. I really don't care to waste my time.

I will respond to your long reply where I think you are wrong and or are just not getting the subject, and you can show me that you are able to push me to think harder about this. I will add this as a new comment in the far left as a new comment.


.
.
.

"It seems to me that you don't have the ability to continue the conversation."

And yet you are the one making excuses, not me, so it seems the opposite is true. I’m perfectly happy with my metaphysical 'account' for thought and reason. These abstractions are a direct consequence of the evolution of complex biological life and the ability of the brain to create a mental representation of reality. They are conceptual and do not exist outside of the mind. You seem to be assuming that these concepts are independently existing entities created by an unproven transcendent being. Care to offer any evidence for that assumption? Does reason exist outside of the mind? Where? Can you pick it up?

"I don't care for the kind of personal attacks that get past for conversation."

Are you implying that I have used personal attacks?


[Sye and Andrew Louis appear here and the discussion gets sidetracked again, but Peter eventually replies a few pages later with what seems to be his closing argument...]

.
.
.

rhiggs,

As I have said, I don't care to waste time. If you can't care to learn and are not able to carry on a conversation, I do have better things to do with my time. That is just a matter of fact. I will state some of my observations which indicate to me that it is not worth my time to keep the conversation going.

You wrote: "reasoning is axiomatic."
You quoted me: ...you are saying that rational thought is self-evident….
You answered: "Not necessarily. Rational thought exists, but not all thought is rational."

It seams to me you have contradicted yourself and/or have changed the subject to run from the issue. I was just repeating your idea, to start my point. You objected to what??? My use of the words "self-evident" instead of "axiomatic"? You objected yourself, because I was only rephrasing[Some would call it 'misquoting'...] what you said: "reasoning is axiomatic" and "rational thought is self-evident" means the same thing.[Which is not what I said at all]

I asked: What did matter changed into? Non-matter?
You answered: "No. It’s still matter, but it has evolved to the stage where it can form a mental representation of its surroundings, have memories and conceptualise. ... I have not necessarily said that ‘rational’ thought is a fact, but since irrational thought would not survive for long under selective pressure, rational thought evolves."

You claim that matter changed but it is still matter. Mindless matter "changed" into thinking matter?[Peter really doesn't like using the word 'evolved'] Does matter think? How did non-thinking object became thinking person? How do you know this? Who was there to see this "change"? I do not accept links as an argument. If you got a case then make it. So far, it is just your atheistic belief speaking.

Here is an example of where you responded to everything else but, the key issue that takes you claims apart.: "The axiomatic concepts I speak of are presupposed by everyone. .... God is not a precondition for truth to exist, but truth is a precondition for God to exist."

Maybe you did not read where I have responded to this already. You have confused Metaphysics and Epistimology; I wrote: Let me just stick with my ability to think/reason. The fact that I am a thinking person is not the same as my fundamental presupposition of my worldview. It is the difference between Metaphysics and Epistimology. The latter is what you are confusing with the former. My first coming to know myself as a thinking self is not the same as my ability to account for myself being a thinking self. My ability to know myself as a thinking self is "first" in the sense of primary in order of knowledge, however my accounting for my ability to think is the "primary foundation" of my rationality[i.e. God-did-it]. What you are laking is a Metaphysics that account for your ability to think (if you have stated it, then again, please show it here.). All you have said so far is that you think rational thought is a fact, but why are you a thinking person given your worldview? How does your worldview explain, or is in conflict with that claim? That is the issue.

This indicates to me that you don't know the issues being talked about:
"This does not mean that they [truth, logic, knowledge, etc] are magical and need a transcendent creator in order to exist (indeed, there are theories of how reason can evolve through purely biological processes). If you disagree, you will have to prove this by providing an example of an instance in which they do not exist and account for your God in their absence."

I never left my first question[Exactly! Even though I answered it 3 times]: Do rocks have axioms. You said they do not, they do not think. As I have said, then knowledge must be accounted for in ones worldview. The is really the issue of worldviews, and axioms are presuppositions that people have, but these axioms/presuppositions[Axioms and presuppositions are not the same thing Peter. That your computer will work is a presupposition, but it is definitely NOT an axiom. Same with God, although presuppers try - and fail - to insert him as an axiom] must be meaningful in ones accepted worldview. A matter only world, like a rock, does not think, is not personal, and has no moral standards. You however is not a rock. You presuppose to think and live, but your accepted worldview does not give you the basis to do so. It is in fact contrary to thinking and life. Dead matter is mindless, impersonal, and lifeless. Thus I have said, your very ability to write me back proves that your worldview is false.

Your wording is incoherent to me. I just am not sure what you are trying to say. Either you are trying to make a profound point, but sounding like you are using words that are just too "big" for you[You have to smile at the irony here], or you are saying something so simple that is not an issue and thus not relevant to the discussion.

You said: "Reasoning is axiomatic and is a process that ‘brain matter’ uses to conceptualise and understand the world around it. Go and read the literature I linked to. Now you may not agree with the hypotheses contained therein but you cannot say that I have not provided a metaphysical account for my ability to reason."

So you think that "brain matter" "uses" reasoning to know the world? Aside from the glaring problem of mindless matter intentionally "use" reasoning before it had reasoning, and problematic leap from reasoning within ones own mind to the outside world as if nerve firings are real indications of the outside real world,... even if we do not address those problems, I am baffled as to your conclusion. How is that at all a "metaphysical account for" reason in your worldview?

I wrote: All you are doing is stating your atheistic faith, that you don't believe God exist, but why do you believe that proposition?

You wrote: "Because in my opinion the evidence does not support the proposition. You are free to disagree, but that does not mean you are correct. Oh and I'm still waiting for those formal proofs. Whenever you're ready please present them..."

So, you are saying that your proposition is not supported by the evidence? If you are going to quote me, I think you should do that in context and write in response to what I wrote.

When I got to this point. I thought to myself, this person must be a little kid, at teenager at most[This from the man who doesn't care for personal attacks...]:
I wrote: This is my simple case against your atheistic view (Sye may not take the same approach): The materialistic worldview of only mindless impersonal amoral matter exist; humans are not irrational, impersonal, amoral; therefore materialism is a false worldview.

You wrote: "Erm, plenty of humans are irrational, impersonal and amoral, so your case fails miserably. Plus materialism can account for non-physical things, such as thought and reason. Again, I suggest you read some neuroscience literature."

Wow, the problems with what is said is just ... hum. I was talking about "the materialistic worldview", you try to prove me wrong with the claim that "plenty" some people are irrational, etc.. Then you went on to claim that materialism can account for the nonmaterial, then suggest that I read about neuroscience. Where in neuroscience proved that matter accounts for non-matter? How can there be non-matter in an only matter world? Are you claiming that all humans are nonthinking/irrational objects, such as a rock? Then how is that even addressing the point?

"On the contrary, I have handled all of your issues. The fact that you might disagree with what I say does not mean I’ve not honestly answered you. You have not yet refuted a single thing I have said and instead keep shifting the goalposts... Let me ask you this Peter. According to your worldview, what do you presuppose first – that God exists or that you exist? If God, then this means you can conceptualise things prior to your own existence, which is clearly ridiculous. If you presuppose that you exist first, how does this make sense in a worldview that insists that presupposing God is necessary for thought and intelligibility? Which brings me nicely to my final request:
Please provide a proof that you exist for certain."


It should be evident to any honest reader that you have not addressed the issue I wrote you about. You have overlook the key point that you confused Metaphysics and Epistimology, you have not proven thought from no-thought, which is your own worldview to prove. I have refuted everything you said above.

"No you don’t. You have presupposed these concepts in order to conceptualise an unproven being, the existence of whom is in question, and then you CONCLUDE that this being is necessary for the concepts you have already presupposed."

It is very evident to me that you are incapable of dealing with this subject. We are talking about worldviews, and presuppositions/axiums. God is the necessary presupposition to have humanity and everything as we know it.[i.e. God-did-it] God is the necessary presupposition, who makes rationality, personhood, human dignity and value, morality, moral value judgements, justice, free-choice, beauty, mathematics, life, and even our ability to write back and forth with each other meaningful.[i.e. God-did-it] For God created you and me, Mud did not make you and me, for mud does not think, is not personal, and is not able to create. It is you who is living in an unproven and proven to be a false world. Your imaginary world of matter only[Imaginary? I can see and touch matter. Can you see and touch God?], that you are confessing that even you do not really believe that your world of matter only is the real world. You have been lied to. Your mud world is not real. Every time you writing me back, you have to try to think and reason, which is a slap to materialism. It is proof that you are not a materialist.


.
.
.

For brevity, I’ll summarise...

1) Rational thought (your words) is not the same as reasoning (my words). You have proven that by your responses. You engage in reasoning but you do this irrationally and come to irrational conclusions (e.g. God exists). Thus, reasoning is axiomatic, but rational thought is not. You might say the same of me, that I am thinking irrationally, but you cannot deny that I am reasoning in some form. So there is no inconsistency on my part, just confusion on yours.

2) Matter has evolved to a state where the complex interconnections in the brain provide a mental representation of reality. Thought and reason have evolved side-by-side with this as way of processing the information taken in from this mental representation. Your denial of this is simply an argument from ignorance as you can’t understand it. And I don’t care a jot what you accept as an argument. It is an established scientific field of inquiry, for which I provided links. This provides both an epistemological and a metaphysical basis for thinking in that it accounts for how and why we think (epistemological), and what the abstract process of thinking is, how it exists and how it arose from matter (and so goes beyond the physical - metaphysical). As I have said, your refusal to accept this account has no bearing on its plausibility.

3) Back to rocks and axioms. You say that “axioms/presuppositions must be meaningful in ones accepted worldview”. My axioms are meaningful in that they are objective, conceptually irreducible, perceptually self-evident, undeniably true and universal. They are meaningful in any 'worldview' I can imagine. I justify my position based on these axioms. You justify yours by a completely circular claim. Your axiom/presupposition that God exists is not objective, conceptu-ally irreducible, perceptually self-evident, undeniably true or universal. The concept of God is so loaded with unjustified assumptions that it is completely subjective. Indeed, you not only try to crowbar ‘God’ in as an axiom with NO justification that isn’t viciously circular, but you attempt to insert your own specific off-shoot of Christianity too. What a joke!

4) In my opinion the evidence does not support the proposition ‘that God exists’. You are free to disagree, but that does not mean you are correct. Oh and I'm still waiting for those formal proofs. Whenever you're ready please present them...

5) Your ‘simple case’ against atheism was
P1: The materialistic worldview of only mindless impersonal amoral matter exist
P2: Humans are not irrational, impersonal, amoral
C: Therefore materialism is a false worldview.

I pointed out a flaw in your second premise in that many humans can be irrational, impersonal and amoral. In fact, your first premise is also untrue as materialism (or similar atheistic 'worldviews') can account for the mind and morals quite easily (but of course you deny this, and keep attacking a strawman). You obviously can’t see why this refutes your conclusion. When you ask “Where in neuroscience proved that matter accounts for non-matter?”, this simply exposes your ignorance of the scientific process.


"I have refuted everything you said above."

HA HA!!!!! Good one. You’re a tryer, I’ll give you that.....


"God is the necessary presupposition to have humanity and everything as we know it. God is the necessary presupposition, who makes rationality, personhood, human dig-nity and value, morality, moral value judgements, justice, free-choice, beauty, mathematics, life, and even our ability to write back and forth with each other meaningful. For God created you and me, Mud did not make you and me, for mud does not think, is not personal, and is not able to create. It is you who is living in an unproven and proven to be a false world. Your imaginary world of matter only, that you are confessing that even you do not really believe that your world of matter only is the real world. You have been lied to. Your mud world is not real. Every time you writing me back, you have to try to think and reason, which is a slap to materialism. It is proof that you are not a materialist."

Wow, that’s a whole pile of wild assumptions and unjustified assertions. Materialism/objectivism/atheistic 'worldviews' can account for all of the above quite nicely. You are confusing the fact that an account exists, with your own refusal to accept the account.

And you still haven’t provided your formal proof that God exists, or that you exist either. What are you scared of? Let’s have them...

.
.
.

There is just no reason to continue. I will let you have the last words there. later

.
.
.

Whatever

.
.
.

[A few days later, Peter piped up again in a response to Paul Baird claiming he had "worked through my arguments". I quote the relevant part below. Note: These exchanges were interspersed by comments from Paul and others]


How does my working through the arguments of rhiggs and showing where he is incapable of answering me, and not worth talking with, run parallel to you running off from a few talks we had where I asked you questions that you just did not write back on? You think that your inability to accounting for logic, or morality and ran from that is the same as my working through the arguments of rhiggs' and pointing out his confusion of metaphysics as epistemology (many other confusions), then giving him the last words, as if that means that I ran from the conversation? Just read the interaction. [...]

You may want to learn about PSA, Only Christianity has the message of God, who became man to lay down his own life for his people. God puts himself in the trap, as if were, as to let his people free. That is the message of PSA. Naturally, naturalism blinds people from the reality of their sins, God, judgment, and even from salvation. That is why I talk with people, hopefully to make them feel uncomfortable about their self confidence in their confessed unbelief. I guess, this could be done by beating people over the head and making them feel stupid, but I think it can also be done gently as well. The problem with the former is that some people would rather bite off their own limb than to show that they lost an argument. Self pride is a huge enemy to truth, yet oddly, it is only by knowing the truth that could set people free.


.
.
.

[I responded...]

"You may want to learn about PSA..."

Typical patronising response from Peter. If you disagree with him, he assumes that you just need to learn more about his worldview and then all his inconsistencies will be resolved. Ironically, it is he that needs to learn more about reality - actual experiments that have been done in this field of neuroscience that form a plausible 'account' for the origin, nature, methods and limits of knowledge (epistemology) and the relationship between the mind and matter (metaphysics). Indeed, the evolutionary 'account' for abstractions nicely addresses both epistemological and metaphysical concerns. But I didn't just tell him so, I actually briefly gave an explanation and even linked to a few resources for further reading. But no, Peter doesn't accept links, so Peter remains in ignorance and keeps bashing strawmen (e.g. mindless matter). He also claims that I confuse metaphysics and epistemology, even though the former of these has many wide-ranging definitions, and Peter doesn't state what particular definition he is referring to. And what are his epistemological and metaphysical 'accounts' for abstractions? Does he actually have any? All I see are a whole lot of bald assertions that boil down to God-did-it, with no further explanation. I could just as easily say Nature-did-it, and the conversation would be over, but I at least attempted to explain my 'account'.

In the end, I agree with Peter that there was no reason to continue. Not only did he fail to refute my arguments, he failed to demonstrate that he even understood them.

.
.
.

[Peter then posted a comment along the usual lines of how I haven't answered anything, and he repeated his 'mindless matter and rocks' argument before finishing with: "Supposedly the relationship between mind and matter is metaphysics?"]

.
.
.

Sorry Peter, you must have wrongly interpreted that my comment was directed towards you, as though I wanted to discuss things further. I have no interest in conversing with someone who is unable to represent their opponent's position correctly, ignores direct questions, and simply shifts goalposts again and again. You also seem to struggle a bit with English and rarely write comprehensible sentences, so perhaps this is why you continually misunderstand my arguments (that is not meant in a nasty way, I'm just stating facts). Either way, I have no interest anymore and feel no obligation to prove anything to you as, by even asking me to prove that "mindless impersonal matter becoming thinking personal matter", you display a profound ignorance of the scientific process.

"Supposedly the relationship between mind and matter is metaphysics?"

Metaphysics: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

I tried to explain that we might simply be using different definitions, but even this wasn't met with a rational response. It seems that Peter just assumes he is always right.

.
.
.

[Peter than deleted the above comment so that it could no longer be seen. This forced me to clarify me last comment by explaining that Peter had deleted his]

.
.
.

Peter has deleted his comment. It originally came between my comment, in which I define obtuse at the end, and Paul's comment about a Poe. The quote in my last comment about metaphysics came from his deleted post.



And that's where the merry-go-round ended. Thankfully.

Read More...