Richard Dawkins

comelately

Wild Horses
The notion of value depends on the pre-condition of there being facts?

Not what I wrote. Please read again.

in the sentence I made it would have been the same to say "the statement only has meaning if it's true"

I disagree. You need to demonstrate that I think (don't think you can).

It is hard, and easily confused with other disciplines which allow less rigorous argument.

A sly dig, but ultimately a silly attempt to define the analytical school of philosophy as the 'real'. Yawn. So if you ultimately don't respect/grasp left-wing continental philosophy, why should I care that you don't like its critique? - a critique I am merely trying to present rather than defend to the last. I am prepared to try and present the critique in a clearer way tomorrow; what I have no intention of doing is trying to turn a cat into a dog or defend every contentious area of philosophy that the critique presupposes.
 
Last edited:

comelately

Wild Horses
Both words and numbers are just symbols but if we can agree on a convention for their meaning (the English language, figures plus elementary-level arithmetic symbols...) then we can make meaningful sentences.

How do you define the meaning of words without other words? How do you define the words you've just used to define the original word(s)? Have fun!
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
There are exceptions to that actually.

This is just what I mean. For any statement I make, you could come up with little niggly points like this, or disingenuously demand definitions for words that any English speaker intuitively understands, in a way that gives the impression of undermining the original statement but actually doesn't, because you're artificially creating the impression of ambiguity or possible wrongness where there isn't any.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
How do you define the meaning of words without other words? How do you define the words you've just used to define the original word(s)? Have fun!

I don't know, but the fact that we're having this conversation abundantly demonstrates that it's possible!
 

comelately

Wild Horses
This is just what I mean. For any statement I make, you could come up with little niggly points like this, or disingenuously demand definitions for words that any English speaker intuitively understands, in a way that gives the impression of undermining the original statement but actually doesn't, because you're artificially creating the impression of ambiguity or possible wrongness where there isn't any.

I am not being disingenuous. You are now the one indulging in sophistry.
 

comelately

Wild Horses
I don't know, but the fact that we're having this conversation abundantly demonstrates that it's possible!

Yet we disagree profoundly over quite a lot, so we are interpreting the words on the pages of this forum thread in significantly different ways - suggesting meaning is contingent on our individual narrative contexts rather than individually reaching the same closures using some kind of strange rigorous logical analysis.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Not what I wrote. Please read again"
This is a literal quote from you "I think that notion of value is dependent on the precondition of there being facts" - I said that you'd said "The notion of value depends on the pre-condition of there being facts?"
What am I missing?

"I disagree. You need to demonstrate that I think (don't think you can)."
Actually you're right here. It's not the same. It still retains its meaning if its untrue but can't be used for anything because, in short, it's wrong (you're making a distinction between truth and facts remember). I don't think that that is a notion of value that depends on fact whatever that means or regardless of whether you said it.

"A sly dig, but ultimately a silly attempt to define the analytical school of philosophy as the 'real'. Yawn. So if you ultimately don't respect/grasp left-wing continental philosophy, why should I care that you don't like its critique? - a critique I am merely trying to present rather than defend to the last. I am prepared to try and present the critique in a clearer way tomorrow; what I have no intention of doing is trying to turn a cat into a dog or defend every contentious area of philosophy that the critique presupposes."
Let's rewind a bit. I simply don't see that you have made any link whatsoever between some left-wing stuff and Dawkins, nevermind presented a critique or defended it. Maybe if you start again and say how the drive to freedom or whatever it was relates to a criticism of Dawkins we could talk more civilly.
 

comelately

Wild Horses
This is a literal quote from you "I think that notion of value is dependent on the precondition of there being facts" - I said that you'd said "The notion of value depends on the pre-condition of there being facts?"
What am I missing?

I'm not saying any notion of value is contingent on there being facts, I'm saying that the notion of value you gf was working with was dependent on there being facts. You wrote, paraphrasing your girl;

the statement "There are no facts" only has value in the case of it being true ie a fact

To me that's really clear, unless you're stating that there is no such thing as value. If you're assuming that there are facts, then obviously the statement 'there are no facts' is going to appear to be false. It's just begging the question. I think that's really clear and I don't think this is worth spending any more time discussing to be honest.

Let's rewind a bit. I simply don't see that you have made any link whatsoever between some left-wing stuff and Dawkins, nevermind presented a critique or defended it. Maybe if you start again and say how the drive to freedom or whatever it was relates to a criticism of Dawkins we could talk more civilly.

Okay. Tomorrow.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"I'm not saying any notion of value is contingent on there being facts, I'm saying that the notion of value you gf was working with was dependent on there being facts. You wrote, paraphrasing your girl"
OK, but it's not though is it? What notion of value would give any value to a statement that is self-defeating (see below)?

"To me that's really clear, unless you're stating that there is no such thing as value. If you're assuming that there are facts, then obviously the statement 'there are no facts' is going to appear to be false. It's just begging the question. I think that's really clear and I don't think this is worth spending any more time discussing to be honest."
No, it's not begging the question. You are correct in saying it's gonna be false if you assume there are facts but it's also going to be false if you assume that there aren't any facts because, according to its own words, there are no true statements. That is very simple and occurs to most people the first time they hear it and it ought to be an end on the matter.
Maybe a better stance would be "There is only one fact and that fact is that this is the only fact and there are no others" but that doesn't have the same zing and it suffers somewhat from arbitrariness.
 

comelately

Wild Horses
OK, but it's not though is it? What notion of value would give any value to a statement that is self-defeating (see below)?


No, it's not begging the question. You are correct in saying it's gonna be false if you assume there are facts but it's also going to be false if you assume that there aren't any facts because, according to its own words, there are no true statements. That is very simple and occurs to most people the first time they hear it and it ought to be an end on the matter.
Maybe a better stance would be "There is only one fact and that fact is that this is the only fact and there are no others" but that doesn't have the same zing and it suffers somewhat from arbitrariness.

*shakes head*

You are assuming that the statement has to be 'true' or 'false'. If there are no facts, the objectivity of trueness and falseness fall away. I don't accept the binary you present, the precondition for accepting it is that there are facts. The fact that you're appealing to a consensus view (one that I don't really buy into at all) as authority is quite revealing I think.
 
Last edited:

luka

Well-known member
comelately you are tying yourself in knots. too many partially digested philosphy books is my diagnosis. if the thinking is clear the writing is clear and yours is garbled. which is not to say i think youre any more wrong than anyone else here, just that you are all getting further and further away from the point, and you are to blame.
reduce the conversation to its essentials. dont get sidetracked by petty point scoring. try to commnicate not obfusacate. specious and sophistical are not entirely the same. not everything which is specious is sophistical although you could argue everything sophistical is specious. but so what? its petty point scoring. carry on.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
@comelately - bro I get that continental philosophy is your hustle but please, please keep that pomo bullshit about the impossibility of facts way the hell away from science. or don't, but be aware no one who actually does science (the real thing I mean, not sociology) cares about your rejection of binaries. I'm sure you will have a witty, condescending response. I'm also sure bruno latour already said whatever you're going to say 20 years ago, only he said it better.

edit: I should clarify that science is its own hustle (half of it, seriously, is pursuit of grant $). questions about how funding shapes research, + hence knowledge, are completely valid. what is bullshit is saying actual experimental results - protein levels in a western blot, say - are not facts.

mr. tea I know we've fought nonsense like this tooth + nail but you got to just let it go. arguing with these guys is like trying to nail jelly to a tree. there's no winning or losing, just an endless purgatory of circular arguments and smugness.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
*shakes head*

You are assuming that the statement has to be 'true' or 'false'. If there are no facts...

But there are, clearly. You don't actually believe that there are no facts, do you? Of course you do. Everyone does. You'd be unable to function as a human being otherwise.

Edit: padraig, you're right, I should know better by now.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
"You are assuming that the statement has to be 'true' or 'false'. If there are no facts, the objectivity of trueness and falseness fall away. I don't accept the binary you present, the precondition for accepting it is that there are facts. The fact that you're appealing to a consensus view (one that I don't really buy into at all) as authority is quite revealing I think."
I'm assuming that if a statement isn't true then it is at least partially untrue - which is all I need here. Or even more simply for you, if a statement denies its own plausibility then it is not worth trying to argue for its plausibility.
The point is that the statement you are making is utterly general and it states a lack of generalities. It can't help but be self-defeating.
What consensus view did I appeal to? Are you talking about when I say that most people can grasp this first time? Normally the accusation of "appeal to authority" does rear its head soon after "there are no facts" and slightly before accusing the person who is pointing out your errors as being "disavowed" and then saying that "science is just another religion".
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
"But there are, clearly. You don't actually believe that there are no facts, do you? Of course you do. Everyone does. You'd be unable to function as a human being otherwise."
I'm not sure about this. You may intellectually believe something but only be able to function as a human being by forgetting that most of the time. For example, I do truly believe that we are made up of atoms etc and that as they are mostly empty space we are mostly empty space. But do I actually believe that in a day to day sense? I'm not sure.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I'm not sure about this. You may intellectually believe something but only be able to function as a human being by forgetting that most of the time. For example, I do truly believe that we are made up of atoms etc and that as they are mostly empty space we are mostly empty space. But do I actually believe that in a day to day sense? I'm not sure.

The argument is made much more stark if you apply it to things that we can comprehend intuitively, unlike atoms. I mean, does comelately really doubt the 'fact' that he is alive? That he and other human beings are members of the same species? That if he jabs himself with a needle, it's going to hurt? That if he walks in front of a bus, he's likely to die? I think it's reasonable to say that anyone who genuinely doubts these facts is mad.

I mean, if someone claims to doubt the fact that walking in front of a bus is likely to be harmful to their health, you can invite them to try: either they'll decline, in which case they were bullshitting and believe just as solidly in the potential hazards of buses as you and I do; or they'll give it a whirl, in which case they're clearly as mad as a spoon.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
almost all relatively rich people function from day to day by forgetting that what they have is ultimately at the expense of others' misery.

there are lots of fairly objective facts that people ignore all the time or obfuscate around, in order to function.
 

comelately

Wild Horses
comelately you are tying yourself in knots. too many partially digested philosphy books is my diagnosis. if the thinking is clear the writing is clear and yours is garbled.

Probably a fair diagnosis. I am trying to explain something difficult, I'm not doing as good a job as I want to or perhaps need to. To put this into context, I'm coming off arguing with a 'recovering objectivist' whose personal philosophy relies on reducing altruism to self-referentialism whilst retaining the transcendental ideal of freedom.

Mr Tea said:
You don't actually believe that there are no facts, do you? Of course you do. Everyone does. You'd be unable to function as a human being otherwise.

That's pretty much the point yes. We need facts and so we have facts (as I have stated), but it is possible to observe our thoughts and come to the realisation that facts are not actually facts are not really what we consider them to be. They are interpretations pretending to a certainty that does not sustain careful analysis

So what? Well human beings can't live merely in a world of such certainties either.The jump between likelihood and certainty is not side-effect free. We have other requirements as human beings which lead us to drop these certainties.

baboon2004 said:
there are lots of fairly objective facts that people ignore all the time or obfuscate around, in order to function.

The most obvious example is human perception of 'will'. We have a need to perceive of ourselves and others as having autonomy - not totally, but the buck has to stop somewhere. Someone has to be accountable. Closure. The making of 'meaning'. But we cannot find this freedom through scientific analysis - it just isn't there. So we have two types of closure, two types of meaning making that will be 'in competition' some of the time. And there are other types, the desire for justice for example. Induction and analysis are necessary parts of human meaning-making, but they are not sufficient.

IdleRich said:
I'm assuming that if a statement isn't true then it is at least partially untrue

I honestly believe that is still question begging when considering the phrase 'there are no facts'. To state 'there are no facts' is not the same as stating 'it is a fact that there are no facts'. My inkling is that a more subtle deconstruction of the statement 'there are no facts' is possible, but accusations of meaninglessness are wide of the mark. With that, I'm going to leave it. Really.

I'm not trying to argue that science is another religion. It does, however, rely upon metaphysics.

padraig u.s said:
please keep that pomo bullshit about the impossibility of facts way the hell away from science

Pretty much happy to do that actually. It's when Dawkins starts sharing platforms with Deepak Chopra and the like that the whole thing gets fucked up. Science should not seek to become another religion.

I'll try and restate 'a left-wing critique' of Dawkins later - I had a heavy Mexican lunch.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
But is it actually a fact that you had lunch? ;)

To return to Dawkins, who i have read precious little of, why is he so concerned about debunking religion? Insofar as it's problematic, it's just one way for people to justify madness/dogma etc, but there are so many other ways too. Madness/dogma is the problem, not religion.
 
Top