About Skepticism

[anthony]

"If man cannot grasp "X", then "non-X" stands for nothing."

"If man cannot grasp "X", then "non-X" stands for nothing."[Leonard Peikoff.]

But from the inability to grasp "X, there does not follow a claim that non-X is the case.

I've no idea what you mean. See the over-all context I placed it in.

I don't think this is a syllogism by LP, but an illustration

of knowledge and fallibility vs skepticism, and the effort needed

to grasp concepts.

IE: "If man cannot grasp 'peace', then 'war' stands for nothing."

[Xray]

I've no idea what you mean. See the over-all context I placed it in.

I don't think this is a syllogism by LP, but an illustration

of knowledge and fallibility vs skepticism, and the effort needed

to grasp concepts.

IE: "If man cannot grasp 'peace', then 'war' stands for nothing."

As you hadn't put the Peikoff quote in context with the rest of what he wrote, it looked like a syllogism to me. My mistake.

I just looked up the context in the AR lexicon, which is in the section about "skepticism" :

http://aynrandlexico...n/abortion.html

Leonard Peikoff, “‘Maybe You’re Wrong,’” The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, 8

[LP]: The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

ThIs is quite a good argument against [radical] skepticism because it pushes the skeptic into an epistemological corner:

For indeed one cannot make assertions about e. g. lack of "certainty", lack of "knowledge", etc. without having formed a mental idea, a concept, of what constitutes certainty and knowledge.

Another Peikoff quote:

http://aynrandlexico...n/abortion.html

Leonard Peikoff, “‘Maybe You’re Wrong,’” The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, 10

[LP]: “Maybe you’re wrong” is an accusation that must be supported by specific evidence. It cannot be uttered without context, grounds, or basis, i.e., arbitrarily.

A rational skeptic would certainly do that. Just as rational agnostic would offer specific evidence to refute claims by religious groups that have no basis in fact.

[anthony]

http://aynrandlexico...n/abortion.html

Leonard Peikoff, “‘Maybe You’re Wrong,’” The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, 8

[LP]: The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

ThIs is quite a good argument against [radical] skepticism because it pushes the skeptic into an epistemological corner:

For indeed one cannot make assertions about e. g. lack of "certainty", lack of "knowledge", etc. without having formed a mental idea, a concept, of what constitutes certainty and knowledge.

Agreed. Falsity would be non-existent in the absence of truth.

Doubt impossible, without certainty in knowledge.

The "non-X" exception proves the "X" rule.

I'm not in favour of your "rational skepticism", which in Objectivist

terms is likely a self-contradiction, but I see how you use it: as

practical and everyday, skepticism - requiring proof of others' assertions.

Doesn't that go without saying? 'Commonsensical doubting' is all it really is.

But I am puzzled as to why "the rational agnostic" would want to refute claims

by religious folk. It's a fruitless and selfless pursuit, I found. Once they play

their trump card - Faith - reason will not suffice, you must have seen.

Given that it's unrewarding, also anything that allows individuals comfort

and certainty in their lives, I'm not going to argue against - as long as they

respect my convictions too. Why bother trying?

[Xray]

But I am puzzled as to why "the rational agnostic" would want to refute claims

by religious folk. It's a fruitless and selfless pursuit, I found. Once they play

their trump card - Faith - reason will not suffice, you must have seen.

Given that it's unrewarding, also anything that allows individuals comfort

and certainty in their lives, I'm not going to argue against - as long as they

respect my convictions too. Why bother trying?

Agnosticsm as I practice it it argues from a strictly epistemological position, and therefore reject as fallacious if the religious believer tries to present the faith card to serve as an argument.

As for "why bother trying" - it depends on the situation. If for example I post on a philosophy forum where theists are trying to make the case for god, I find it interesting to study how they conduct their argumentation.

I must admit I was totally surprised that some quite fervent theists seem to be posting on SOLO, and especailly surprised about a poster named Richard Goode. I used to think of RG as quite a rational, level-headed type, and therefore initially thought he was being ironic when he quoted passages from the Bible; but then it dawned on me that he was obviously serious!

Maybe he has had some 'religious conversion' experience from Objectivist to theist recently, but it is also possible that I had just been blind to him being religious because didn't really expect any theists to be posting on SOLO.

I think I'll ask him directly to erase all doubt.

[Xray]

I must admit I was totally surprised that some quite fervent theists seem to be posting on SOLO, and especailly surprised about a poster named Richard Goode. I used to think of RG as quite a rational, level-headed type, and therefore initially thought he was being ironic when he quoted passages from the Bible; but then it dawned on me that he was obviously serious!

Maybe he has had some 'religious conversion' experience from Objectivist to theist recently, but it is also possible that I had just been blind to him being religious because didn't really expect any theists to be posting on SOLO.

I think I'll ask him directly to erase all doubt.

I asked him and he replied that he has had a religious conversion experience recently, but has never been an Objectivist.

[Xray]

Not acknowledging the existence of a "Supreme Being" can even make an atheist unelectable in some US states: [bolding mine]

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8

The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

http://www.americanh...rohibit-godless

[George H. Smith]

Not acknowledging the existence of a "Supreme Being" can even make atheist unelectable in some US states:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8

The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

http://www.americanh...rohibit-godless

Damn. There go my plans to move to Arkansas and run for governor.

There are no religious tests for governor in Illinois. The only truly onerous requirement is that you be willing to spend a few years in prison.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Not acknowledging the existence of a "Supreme Being" can even make atheist unelectable in some US states:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not only "a", but "the Supreme Being". Or so one could say to easily get around any of these laws.

[Selene]

No that is a sensible and sane town.

[Brant Gaede]

Not acknowledging the existence of a "Supreme Being" can even make atheist unelectable in some US states:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8

The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

http://www.americanh...rohibit-godless

Damn. There go my plans to move to Arkansas and run for governor.

There are no religious tests for governor in Illinois. The only truly onerous requirement is that you be willing to spend a few years in prison.

Ghs

Just say you're the Supreme Being and you'll be in like Flint!

--Brant

"I believe in me!"

[anthony]

Harking back to this thread, in the light of a painful day for the United States Constitution.

Not to rub it in, but for an extra perspective - maybe:

The skeptic (philosophical) as an ex-mystic/intrisicist (I have noticed time and again)will never accept 'the metaphysical nature of man'. That is: man unchanging. A being equally physical and transcending the physical, by his inherent nature - for all time.

If knowledge cannot be revelatory to our skeptic, then it can only be known by authority of the collective, and/or, a leader. Same coin, different sides, as Rand viewed it (culminating in the religious/progressive 'divide'.)

His own judgment is eternally on hold until the 'jury of his peers' returns.

A principle is, therefore, up for grabs at any one time - NOT because one should check one's principles and premises, always - but because ALL ideas are subjective in his frame of reference.

Without an objective nature to attribute to man, it then appears to the philo-skeptic,

that man is always changing. The surface is all he can, or wants to, see.

Therefore, any code of morality or conduct (or Constitution) is "a living document."

It must be modified and overturned as public opinion and whimsy or some authoritarian dictates.

This is the Age of Entitlement, and I fervently hope it is short-lived for Americans

for the sake of all of us.

[william.scherk]

The skeptic (philosophical) as an ex-mystic/intrisicist (I have noticed time and again)will never accept 'the metaphysical nature of man'.

Then I do go on, via Soundcloud ... with my first 'real voice' OL Radio Show.
____________________________________

Bonus question at the ten minute mark

References

Susan Haack's SI article "Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism | Haack's Defending Science, Within Reason | Review by Sophist-in-Training

Defining skeptic | [skep-tik] noun

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.

4. ( initial capital letter ) Philosophy .
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

adjective

5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.

6. initial capital letter ) pertaining to the Skeptics.

Origin: 1565–75;

Can be confused: cynic, optimist, pessimist, skeptic .

Synonym ... Doubter. See atheist. Antonym ... Believer.

From the cutting room floor

My favourite writer of late: no one can match Amal Hanano's brilliant prose. She invokes 'A Tale of Two Cities' in "One Year of Hope" ... "What I learned hardened and softened me ... I learned how to talk about death without cringing ... I began with hope."

And for the Maestro MSK ...

Aqueles sistemas formais que são conhecidos como a lógica ‘pa- drão’ ou ‘clássica’ (e que se ensinam emcursos de lógica formal ele- mentar) devemseguramente ser considerados lógicas, se algo deve assimser considerado. Parece, pois, apropriadoadmitir tambémco- mo lógicas aqueles sistemas formais que são análogos aos primeiros. Entre tais sistemas ‘análogos’ incluo: extensões da lógica clássica, is- toé, sistemas que acrescentamnovo vocabulário lógico(‘necessaria- mente’ e ‘possivelmente’ nas lógicas modais, ‘era o casoque’ e ‘será o casoque’ nas lógicas temporais, ‘deve’ e ‘pode’ nas lógicas deônticas, ‘sabe’ e ‘acredita’ nas lógicas epistêmicas, ‘prefere’ nas lógicas da pre- ferência) ao lado de novos axiomas ou regras para o novo vocabulá- rio, ouque aplicam operações lógicas conhecidas a novos itens (sen-tenças imperativas ou interrogativas); divergências da lógica clássica, i.e., sistemas com o mesmo vocabulário, mas com axiomas ou regras diferentes (emgeral, mais restritos); e lógicas indutivas, que procu- ramformalizar uma noção de suporte análoga, porémmais fraca que a de conseqüência lógica. Sua similaridade à lógica clássica – não apenas similaridade formal, mas ainda similaridade de propósitoe de interpretação pretendida –faz que seja natural ver esses sistemas co- mo lógicas. (De maneira alternativa, eu poderia ter começado com a lógica tradicional aristotélica, da qual a lógica ‘clássica’ moderna é uma extensão, e dali ter prosseguido por um processo similar de analogia.)

Edited July 1, 2012 by william.scherk

[Xray]

The skeptic (philosophical) as an ex-mystic/intrisicist (I have noticed time and again)will never accept 'the metaphysical nature of man'. That is: man unchanging. A being equally physical and transcending the physical, by his inherent nature - for all time.

Since there is no shortage of concrete examples from life that can be used to subject one's philosophical tenets to the litmus test of reality - why not make use of it?

Here is a recent example of a judge whose eight-year-prison sentence of a drunk driver included - Bible Study (!!):

http://www.christian...le-study-77560/

A judge in South Carolina decided to sentence a drunk driver to more than just eight years in prison, adding that the convicted person must also do a Bible study.

...

According to his biography page on the South Carolina Judicial Department's website, Judge Michael Nettles "is an active member of the Lake City First Baptist Church, where he serves as a Deacon, Sunday School Teacher, and member of the Foreign Missions Team."

You wrote: " 'the metaphysical nature of man'. That is: man unchanging. A being equally physical and transcending the physical, by his inherent nature - for all time."

Since the judge is an example of the species man, and if "the metaphysical nature of man" is "man unchanging for all time" -

in what way does man's "inherent nature, unchanging for all time" manifest itself in a judge who sentences a defendant to read the Bible?

[Brant Gaede]

That's not "inherent nature," Xray, that's an add on. The "inherent nature" is the adding on of nature not inherent.

--Brant

[anthony]

Xray, to get to man's metaphysics, you have to get away from this concretedness.

Go directly to the concept 'man'. Don't consider one person, but if you have to, subtract all his layers. Zoom in on your judge, stripping away identities: "judge" - "religious nut" - "gender-male" - "race-caucasian" - "mammal"- and so on, through all the differentiae, until you arrive at the commonality of all men. The singular, defining, characteristics of "Man".

An animal which is rational. That is, a solitary (autonomous) biological organism which possesses the faculty of reason.

Conscious, like all animals, but additionally also conscious of its consciousness, i.e. self-aware. Therefore, self-directing - volitional.

It is also, unlike other animals, limited by having almost zero instincts to aid its survival, with no more than its senses and 'mind' to identify and make order out of its existence and environment. Moreso, a 'mind' that doesn't even function automatically, but has to be switched on and focused constantly ("self-generated, self-sustaining") through the organism's life span. With this zinger: no matter how much one may want to, it is impossible to think for anyone else - metaphysically, we're each, on our own.

It is all self-evident stuff really. One doesn't have to read the philosophers to establish the Nature of Man, but can observe, induce and introspect a lot of it. However, the remainder of a philosophy - epistemology and morality - can't begin to exist until man is identified. And metaphysics is where it can start wrongly.

Either philosophies have added elements that just do not exist in men (spirituality/mysticism) or, they have emphasized the literal (man's animal biology), subtracting man's consciousness, his conceptual faculty.

So, we get a choice which is no choice at all - man, a sublime being by the grace of god's creation - or a biologically-determined 'logician'.

The false choice of a bestowed Soul - or secular materialism. Only a few philosophers

saw through the metaphysical fallacy, to man as a being "of self-made soul".

[BaalChatzaf]

Xray, to get to man's metaphysics, you have to get away from this concretedness.

Go directly to the concept 'man'. Don't consider one person, but if you have to, subtract all his layers. Zoom in on your judge, stripping away identities: "judge" - "religious nut" - "gender-male" - "race-caucasian" - "mammal"- and so on, through all the differentiae, until you arrive at the commonality of all men. The singular, defining, characteristics of "Man".

In short, reify abstractions. I have news for you. We are all somewhat different from one another.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

These axiomatic terms, metaphysics and epistemology, are abstractions in themselves. Without the abstracting agent, man (men), they do not "exist" unless we have abstracting dolphins or men from Mars. The non-men particulars are still there, but epistemology is a complete conceptual wipeout. This thread is not about particulars as such.

--Brant

[anthony]

The skeptic (philosophical) as an ex-mystic/intrisicist (I have noticed time and again)will never accept 'the metaphysical nature of man'.

Then I do go on,

William,

I haven't forgotten you. Who could?

(Good voice, btw.)

You don't, I suppose, think man is "a being of self-made soul", by any chance?

Put another way - a being of self-activating, ever-expanding consciousness?

No? a pity.

Or do you view him as a repository of knowledge, relying on his memory banks to take in

(I'd hazard) more and more data, unresolved (or non-integrated) into concepts?

No, not this, either: I have enough respect for your intellect not to try to simplify your fundamental vision, and your premises.

But, do you see the metaphysical divide?

The first speaks of the authority of self, it maintains that knowledge is not knowledge, until it is knowledge for 'someone': a single individual - you, me. Which has to be built from the ground-up, considered, accepted or rejected piece by piece, until it forms concepts and principles, belonging only to each of us.

The second, of collected, and 'collective' knowledge - corresponding to "scientism", if I understand Haack correctly.

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

"Skepticism"? Ultimately, what's in a name? You know by now by which definition I'm using it, and by what concept Rand meant it.

"Transcended" is my way of startling both the religious and atheists. Simply, I have fun taking back those kidnapped words eg, reverence, salvation, exaltation etc - (but please, not "epiphany"! That wasn't my fault!!)

I mean it literally, though. Don't you believe we "transcend" our materialism?

Useful info about Susan Haack - "scientism", "preposterism" - a conceptualist, so she may be worth attention.

[Mikee]

I see man as a self interested, concious and aware, reasoning, and social entity. My working definition of epistomology is "how we know what we think we know" which encompasses our ability (intelligence, memory, organization of data, learned methods?) and commitment to logic and reason (integrity) and the premises (metaphysics) which are the starting point of our reasoning about anything.

Man's "nature" doesn't have to be different to get a completely different animal from different premises and social situations combined with men of varying abilities. Infinite possibilities.

[Xray]

That's not "inherent nature," Xray, that's an add on. The "inherent nature" is the adding on of nature not inherent.

I was quoting Tony who used the word combination "inherent nature" in his # 61 post.

I wouldn't interpret too much into it though; I think think he used "inherent" merely for reason of emphasis.

[anthony]

I see man as a self interested, concious and aware, reasoning, and social entity. My working definition of epistomology is "how we know what we think we know" which encompasses our ability (intelligence, memory, organization of data, learned methods?) and commitment to logic and reason (integrity) and the premises (metaphysics) which are the starting point of our reasoning about anything.

Man's "nature" doesn't have to be different to get a completely different animal from different premises and social situations combined with men of varying abilities. Infinite possibilities.

Sure, Mike - infinite possibilities. Once one moves from the tip of the pyramid, the divergence is

increasingly extreme.

No ways, not that you are saying this, do I see the MNoM as deterministic for the individual.

No, there is plainly too much between the tip and the base of the pyramid, via free will.

But it does set the parameters, and the peaks to aim at, don't you think?

"How do we know what we think we know?" is a good one. It closely follows on from "What are we?"

and "Where am I?" to then delineate a moral system 'naturally', from all the answers.

[Brant Gaede]

That's not "inherent nature," Xray, that's an add on. The "inherent nature" is the adding on of nature not inherent.

I was quoting Tony who used the word combination "inherent nature" in his # 61 post.

I wouldn't interpret too much into it though; I think think he used "inherent" merely for reason of emphasis.

I didn't say it was yours. And I don't get his "transcending the physical" either, unless he only means life itself, not human in particular only.

--Brant

we can say with greater lucidity and even lesser value that a molecule transcends an atom

[Mikee]

I see man as a self interested, concious and aware, reasoning, and social entity. My working definition of epistomology is "how we know what we think we know" which encompasses our ability (intelligence, memory, organization of data, learned methods?) and commitment to logic and reason (integrity) and the premises (metaphysics) which are the starting point of our reasoning about anything.

Man's "nature" doesn't have to be different to get a completely different animal from different premises and social situations combined with men of varying abilities. Infinite possibilities.

Sure, Mike - infinite possibilities. Once one moves from the tip of the pyramid, the divergence is

increasingly extreme.

No ways, not that you are saying this, do I see the MNoM as deterministic for the individual.

No, there is plainly too much between the tip and the base of the pyramid, via free will.

But it does set the parameters, and the peaks to aim at, don't you think?

"How do we know what we think we know?" is a good one. It closely follows on from "What are we?"

and "Where am I?" to then delineate a moral system 'naturally', from all the answers.

Yes, I believe in free will, I am not a determinist. I don't think at this point in time we can see what the potential of man is. Certainly to escape this earth which ultimately is a death trap. The trend has been towards greater knowledge and understanding of nature and also towards free and open societies. I wish I could be alive a thousand years from now where the beginnings that have been happening in our lifetime might come to fruition.

[Brant Gaede]

You can never see what the "potential of man is," you can only get out of the way of man and/or be one of the gotten out of the way of and achieve and/or observe the results--things are getting better, overall, for now, and absent that killer asteroid or comet are likely to keep getting better even if the USA gets worse.

--Brant

so far an observer