Literary News

[New Devilry]

Quote Originally Posted by Ibrahim

You seem to be applying Occam's Razor here, which is interesting because it was once thought that the most plausible explanation in many cases would be the existence of a creator, which just goes toward showing that what 'makes sense' differs per epoch, pointing towards qcrisp's previous comment about temperament and character.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you familiar with the god of the gaps fallacy?

Quote

Have you read the Qur'an? Very thin on descriptive prose, that book. If anything, it functions much in the way that psychedelics do in your description - helping a person explore their consciousness.

I don't have much experience reading the Quran, no, but I did take a couple courses on Islamic philosophy in college. I thought al-Razi was rad, and Ghazali a tragedy for Islamic civilization.

Quote

Is the necessity of a self-evident solution self-evident?

I don't believe that solutions should be self-evident, but some of Justin's statements were presented as if they were self-evident and uncontroversial when they were not so.

Quote

Might it not also be said of Science that it has 'pretty much nothing to say about the nature of reality other than what they have to say about human beings, the way our brains work, and the way we like to search for knowledge and meaning. '?

Science has plenty to say about the universe apart from human beings.

Quote Originally Posted by Justin Isis

I'm not going to get into defending monotheism or any kind of organized religion, I'll just say that the vast majority of the human race takes "divine revelations" (or at least seemingly non-repeatable events of an unusual nature) to be worthy of at least some consideration.

This is an argument from popularity, and it isn't the first time it's appeared in this thread. It's fallacious.

Quote

As Matt Cardin pointed out: "He suggests that the very essence of what has been termed the paranormal is this synchronistic breach of the barrier between subjectivity and objectivity. If there's anything to this, then such experiences, perceptions, events, encounters, would categorically elude customary empirical investigation along scientific lines, since they would generally take the form of singular "one-off" events that cannot be tested or replicated."

I'm not sure what "synchronistic breach of the barrier between subjectivity and objectivity" is supposed to mean, but I repeat: if you can't falsify a claim, then it's indistinguishable from fiction.

Quote

But psychedelics and the occult are things we can very much test out for ourselves in the here and now.

Such as?

Quote

Not arbitrary at all.

It's arbitrary because you're setting up requirements based on your own personal experience. People have described similar experiences that were achieved through different means—hunger, sleep deprivation, isolation, meditation, and so on. Not to mention different combinations of drugs than what you describe. Why is your experience more authentic?

This is an important question that you have yet to address.

Quote

Scientific controls along the lines of the Strassman experiments would be good...we need to get Harris on 1000 micrograms of acid and then hit him with high amounts of intravenous DMT...would repeat this for maybe two or three months until we're sure Harris has actually "gotten through."

What you really mean is "until we're sure Harris thinks he has 'gotten through.'" You can't know anything more than that.

This is related to my question above regarding the authenticity of your experience versus the inauthenticity of others': how do you tell the difference between (A) merely believing you've gotten through and (B) actually having gotten through?

[Ibrahim]

Quote Originally Posted by Trau

Quote Originally Posted by Ibrahim You seem to be applying Occam's Razor here, which is interesting because it was once thought that the most plausible explanation in many cases would be the existence of a creator, which just goes toward showing that what 'makes sense' differs per epoch, pointing towards qcrisp's previous comment about temperament and character. I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you familiar with the god of the gaps fallacy?

Since you do not mention what it is that makes you unsure of my point, i hope this gives some direction: you do, i suppose, agree that it is Occam's Razor you applied there? ( He never phrased it thus but, you know, "the least complicated solution will be the most probable"&c ) Well, William of Ockham was a theologian and used it in favour of, not against, a theistic explanation ( which was then considered to be the simple, unadorned, and least far-fetched hypothesis ).
The god of the gap fallacy has nothing to do with it; in fact, i agree that it won't do to seek material scientific proof of God's existence. If his existence must be argued, beside being believed, then i'd prefer the path of logic.

"I don't have much experience reading the Quran, no, but I did take a couple courses on Islamic philosophy in college. I thought al-Razi was rad, and Ghazali a tragedy for Islamic civilization."

I am really, honestly curious what you have been told about Al-Ghazali to think him a tragedy for Islamic civilization; i hope you'll find time to answer that question. I am asking sincerely, without quarrelsome intention.

[qcrisp]

Complete materialism has an unexpected logical consequence, of course. The moment we say that some things are real and some are not, we are becoming dualist, and privileging one half of the dualism over the other. If there is only matter, on the other hand, that is a monist universe and we can't logically say that an imaginary unicorn, for instance, is not real, since mind is, by definition, then matter, and we are taking matter to be real. So, oddly enough, complete materialism is very like immaterialism. I am not entirely convinced they are distinguishable in the end.

Most materialists, however (all those that I have encountered), are accidentally slipping dualism in by claiming that there is something that is 'not real' that we nonetheless experience.

[New Devilry]

Quote Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Since you do not mention what it is that makes you unsure of my point, i hope this gives some direction: you do, i suppose, agree that it is Occam's Razor you applied there? ( He never phrased it thus but, you know, "the least complicated solution will be the most probable"&c ) Well, William of Ockham was a theologian and used it in favour of, not against, a theistic explanation ( which was then considered to be the simple, unadorned, and least far-fetched hypothesis ). The god of the gap fallacy has nothing to do with it; in fact, i agree that it won't do to seek material scientific proof of God's existence. If his existence must be argued, beside being believed, then i'd prefer the path of logic.

"Least complicated solution" has a very specific meaning as stated by Occam's Razor—it's the solution that requires the fewest assumptions (in other words, unproven conclusions) in order for it to be true. The solution also has to be predictive and it has to be falsifiable.

This is a great example from Rational Wiki:

Quote

...one must carefully (and honestly) separate all assumptions being made...a simple-minded evaluation would say "my television functions because of electricity" is as "simple" as "my television functions because of Martians." But to actually evaluate these: My television contains circuitry. My television draws power from the mains which I can show is used by the circuitry. The power from the mains going through the circuitry is what makes the television function. My television contains circuitry. My television draws power from the mains which I can show is used by the circuitry. The power from the mains going through the circuitry is not what makes the television function. It functions because of Martians. Who are in orbit in their flying saucer. Which is invisible and undetectable. And powers my television in a way that is also invisible and undetectable. And requires no obvious additional components in my television. It should now be clear which of these would actually be regarded as containing the least number of additional terms. Also, the first hypothesis has predictive power: if you unplug the television from the mains, it ceases to function.

If Ockham used the law of parsimony to prove the existence of God, then he failed his own test somewhere along the way. Somehow I think the principle has been refined since then? "God did it" seems like a simple explanation, but it raises more questions than it answers. The god of the gaps fallacy applies, because throughout history, people have invoked God when they reached the limits of their knowledge.

Quote

I am really, honestly curious what you have been told about Al-Ghazali to think him a tragedy for Islamic civilization; i hope you'll find time to answer that question. I am asking sincerely, without quarrelsome intention.

My understanding—and this may be overly simplistic—is that al-Ghazali is largely responsible for the Islamic world's scientific decline. Happy to be disabused of that notion if it isn't correct.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Trau

The god of the gaps fallacy applies, because throughout history, people have invoked God when they reached the limits of their knowledge.

Whereas now they reach the limits of their knowledge and invoke 'brute fact'.

[New Devilry]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Quote Originally Posted by Trau The god of the gaps fallacy applies, because throughout history, people have invoked God when they reached the limits of their knowledge. Whereas now they reach the limits of their knowledge and invoke 'brute fact'.

No, they say, "We haven't figured out that part yet."

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Trau

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp Quote Originally Posted by Trau The god of the gaps fallacy applies, because throughout history, people have invoked God when they reached the limits of their knowledge. Whereas now they reach the limits of their knowledge and invoke 'brute fact'. No, they say, "We haven't figured out that part yet."

This is the cue for posting Bertrand Russell's classic misunderstanding of the cosmological argument, but I shall do that later, as it's bedtime for me.

[Arthur Staaz]

In reflecting on Occam's Razor, it seems that you have to distinguish between its application in logic and its application in science. Logic may require consideration of premises that are not observable. Science, of course, is based completely on observation. It's also important to point out that "predictive power" is not a part of Occam's Razor but a separate principle that makes complete sense in science but might not in the realm of the purely logical.

So, what might Occam's Razor suggest about the origins of the universe?

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Trau

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp Quote Originally Posted by Trau The god of the gaps fallacy applies, because throughout history, people have invoked God when they reached the limits of their knowledge. Whereas now they reach the limits of their knowledge and invoke 'brute fact'. No, they say, "We haven't figured out that part yet."

In my in-box this morning, I found the following story:

http://dailysciencefiction.com/scien...n-the-internet

It chimes in with the fact that I really need to get on with other things, so this - I hope - will be my last post on this thread.

This is the debate between Frederick Coplestone and Bertrand Russell about the existence of God to which I was adverting yesterday:

YouTube

It's quite long and might not be of interest, but I'm putting it here because it's an example of what I was talking about.

I made my last two comments because I thought your treatment of Ockham was unjust.

"Somehow I think the principle has been refined since then?"

I don't think merely presuming that someone you haven't read had a bad argument makes a persuasive case.

The 'god of the gaps' thing about 'we just haven't explained it yet' doesn't answer the comment that I made, either, since, even if you explain everything within the natural universe, you haven't explained the existence of the universe itself. This takes us back to the point I made earlier about the question of the reality status of the natural universe. (I would link back to it if I could find it. Edit - Found it: http://www.ligotti.net/showpost.php?...&postcount=136)

I think there's actually a subtlety here that gets overlooked, but a large part of why it gets overlooked is that people aren't interested in it, as your quote from Conan demonstrated and as is also demonstrated by this part of the exchange between Coplestone and Russell:

Copleston: Well if a question for you has no meaning, it's of course very difficult to discuss it, isn't it?
Russell: Yes, It is very difficult. What do you say, shall we pass on to some other issue?
Copleston: Yes!

Well, for now, I shall be following the suit of these two gentlemen.

[Ibrahim]

Quote Originally Posted by Trau

Quote Originally Posted by Ibrahim Since you do not mention what it is that makes you unsure of my point, i hope this gives some direction: you do, i suppose, agree that it is Occam's Razor you applied there? ( He never phrased it thus but, you know, "the least complicated solution will be the most probable"&c ) Well, William of Ockham was a theologian and used it in favour of, not against, a theistic explanation ( which was then considered to be the simple, unadorned, and least far-fetched hypothesis ). The god of the gap fallacy has nothing to do with it; in fact, i agree that it won't do to seek material scientific proof of God's existence. If his existence must be argued, beside being believed, then i'd prefer the path of logic. "Least complicated solution" has a very specific meaning as stated by Occam's Razor—it's the solution that requires the fewest assumptions (in other words, unproven conclusions) in order for it to be true. The solution also has to be predictive and it has to be falsifiable. This is a great example from Rational Wiki: Quote ...one must carefully (and honestly) separate all assumptions being made...a simple-minded evaluation would say "my television functions because of electricity" is as "simple" as "my television functions because of Martians." But to actually evaluate these: My television contains circuitry. My television draws power from the mains which I can show is used by the circuitry. The power from the mains going through the circuitry is what makes the television function. My television contains circuitry. My television draws power from the mains which I can show is used by the circuitry. The power from the mains going through the circuitry is not what makes the television function. It functions because of Martians. Who are in orbit in their flying saucer. Which is invisible and undetectable. And powers my television in a way that is also invisible and undetectable. And requires no obvious additional components in my television. It should now be clear which of these would actually be regarded as containing the least number of additional terms. Also, the first hypothesis has predictive power: if you unplug the television from the mains, it ceases to function. If Ockham used the law of parsimony to prove the existence of God, then he failed his own test somewhere along the way. Somehow I think the principle has been refined since then? "God did it" seems like a simple explanation, but it raises more questions than it answers. The god of the gaps fallacy applies, because throughout history, people have invoked God when they reached the limits of their knowledge. Quote I am really, honestly curious what you have been told about Al-Ghazali to think him a tragedy for Islamic civilization; i hope you'll find time to answer that question. I am asking sincerely, without quarrelsome intention. My understanding—and this may be overly simplistic—is that al-Ghazali is largely responsible for the Islamic world's scientific decline. Happy to be disabused of that notion if it isn't correct.

It appears to me you have misinterpreted my intention in bringing up Occam. The point was not at all to use the razor in the argument, it was merely to show how what was once considered the least far-fetched hypothesis has shifted along with dominant ideas in society, i.e. how relative any statement about things being 'plausible'or not must be.
I wasn't defending the idea that God is the more plausible solution, but trying to point out that calling something plausible or implausible does not make it so. I thought presenting the changing interpretation of Occam's dictum over the centuries would perhaps be helpful in illustrating that.

Re: Ghazali. Ah, that old idea: that a single book, the Incoherence of the Philosophers, was responsible for the decline of scientific thought across several societies at once? Without getting into much detail i'd say that this notion is as debatable, if not ridiculous, as it is sounds on the surface.
The book in question makes very few statements about science or its application; it is mostly a polemic, grounded in the language of philosphy and logic; Al-Ghazali puts forward no theologic motives for the dismissal of certain philosophers' ideas, but refutes them through their own methods. The book has no formal legal status, it is not a document of jurisprudence. It is an example of learned debate, highly influential to Aquinas and later authors. It's a good book, i'd recommend it, and also Ibn Sina's rebuttal.

As an aside & admonition to caution: I have noticed, from reading their works extensively in some cases, and from reading excerpts in others, that many Orientalist professors seem to follow Bernard Lewis's example in exhibiting a great deal of contempt in the treatment of their own subject.

The great Edward Said's work remains a brilliant corrective of these attitudes.
And to bring it back to literature & hopefully, like qcrisp, to end for now my contribution to this thread: Said's essays on late style are a delight.