Quote :

"The antecedents for any sort of "rational" inference based on observable facts have to be built into some theoretical framework or other."

If I conclude, based on my observations, that one thing seems to cause another, then I have made a rational inference, according to the most commonly understood definitions of both terms. This might not fit with your narrow understanding of rationalism, and that's fine. But you don't need to launch into a huge fucking tirade about it, especially since I'm the one in the mainstream.

Quote :

"Even if what you said was right, you'd still be wrong about your original point; "logical inference" did not even exist until Aristotle, he was the first to invent syllogism. Do you get that? Syllogism was an invention. It occurred literally centuries after the first records of dogmatic religion."

One does not need to be aware of the concept of syllogism in order to think syllogistically. Do you get that?

Quote :

""Rationalism" and "empiricism" in this time period refer to diametrically-opposed positions."

Why are we required to restrict ourselves to eighteenth century terminology? Shouldn't we be lampooning you for your use of archaic definitions?

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2010 12:45:22 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that McDanger is using the philosophical definition of rationalism when we are using the practical definition: the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct. With reason defined as : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact"

Can you find the undefined term? (Spoiler in second response.)

Quote :

"Which is actually concurrent with empiricism in that the only valid explanations for things in reality are that which is observed in reality."

Only if you cash out "sufficient" in certain ways.

Quote :

"Before I start replacing rationalism with skepticism I just want to make sure that I can use that word without offending McDanger's philosophical sensibilities. Is there something I should know about ancient skeptics that would somehow make skepticism and mysticism cooperative?"

Do you mean a lack of belief in the outside world? What about mystics would be coherent with that concept? Mystics think they're gaining knowledge of SOMETHING.

Quote :

"If I conclude, based on my observations, that one thing seems to cause another, then I have made a rational inference, according to the most commonly understood definitions of both terms. This might not fit with your narrow understanding of rationalism, and that's fine. But you don't need to launch into a huge fucking tirade about it, especially since I'm the one in the mainstream."

Wrong. Suppose X causes Y. You and I both have access to the same observation; I conclude based on my observation that Y causes X. You conclude X causes Y. Who made the rational inference? Why? Somebody made a CORRECT inference but there's an important difference.

Quote :

"One does not need to be aware of the concept of syllogism in order to think syllogistically. Do you get that?"

I "get" that nobody fucking did it before Aristotle. There is no written record of it. There is written record of arguments -- this starts between Thales and Anaximander. People are making arguments, but there's no notion of what a "right argument" is, or what "inferences that preserve truth" are. This is an Aristotelian concept through and through, and his main intellectual achievement.

People made correct inferences sometimes, but the form of these inferences and their truth-preserving qualities (which is precisely what's special about logic) wasn't discovered until WELL AFTER RELIGION. This makes religion anything but a "rational endeavor" at its inception, because there's no notion of rationality yet. What about this is hard for you to understand? I can't believe I'm wasting my time arguing with an idiot; ignorance is one thing, but you actually seem PROUD of yours and determined to continue it. In the time you spent typing out your unbelievably worthless thoughts you could have learned something, either by listening to me or by looking up one of the references I listed. God damn you're a foolish prick.

Quote :

"Why are we required to restrict ourselves to eighteenth century terminology? Shouldn't we be lampooning you for your use of archaic definitions?"

I am using the Western definition of the term. As much as you stupid peckerwoods crow about defending "Western culture", you'd think that here and there you'd learn something about it.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 2:30 PM. Reason : . ]

5/26/2010 2:29:00 PM

Quote :

"I'm the one in the mainstream."

You say this as though it's something to be proud of...

5/26/2010 2:39:50 PM

I mean Greek is a lot more east than NC am I right and for what its worth, Lexington BBQ sucks ass! Fuck that western shit

5/26/2010 2:43:43 PM

Quote :

"Do you mean a lack of belief in the outside world? What about mystics would be coherent with that concept? Mystics think they're gaining knowledge of SOMETHING."

Define "outside world". Skepticism does not mean Solipsism.

Skepticism = only belief in that which can be proven through evidence, observation, testing.

5/26/2010 2:56:26 PM

In fact, funny enough, in the East there's a tradition of formal logic that developed directly from religion. People wanted to know that the inferences they made in theology were "truth-preserving". Sorry noobs.

5/26/2010 3:00:46 PM

Re: "Skepticism", it really depends. There are skeptical positions that say investigation is completely fruitless; this may not be identical to solipsism but it's functionally equivalent with respect to crafting scientific theories.

5/26/2010 3:02:20 PM

I hate to derail this thread's topic, but the board voted in favor of the mosque:

Quote :

"Angry relatives of 9/11 victims last night clashed with supporters of a planned mosque near Ground Zero at a raucous community-board hearing in Manhattan. After four hours of public debate, members of Community Board 1 finally voted 29-1 in support of the project. Nine members abstained, arguing that they wanted to table the issue and vote at a later date. The board has no official say over whether the estimated $100 million mosque and community center gets built. But the panel's support, or lack of it, is considered important in influencing public opinion. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyers_wage_jihad_vs_wtc_mosque_UgJiOBYEhrSOw4Q6hpvbQL#ixzz0p4258Ftr "

5/26/2010 3:07:14 PM

The only reason I would object to the mosque in that location is that I would object to the building of new mosques in any location. There's nothing particular about that location, or that mosque that any reasonable (don't kill me for using that word, McDanger) person can argue.

It's functionally the correct ruling.

5/26/2010 3:11:12 PM

Gotta love seeing bigotry go down in flames.

Quote :

"There's nothing particular about that location, or that mosque that any reasonable (don't kill me for using that word, McDanger) person can argue."

Don't be fucking obtuse just because you're ignorant and wrong

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 3:11:58 PM

Quote :

"Somebody made a CORRECT inference but there's an important difference."

i made the correct inference

5/26/2010 3:12:06 PM

^ Can I get a witness.

5/26/2010 3:12:55 PM

for the majority of the protesters, it is not about bigotry. it is way too complex to be summed up in terms of simple racism (its also lame).

its not an ingrained racial hatred of brown people that made people upset. its the emotions tied to that unique space and the unique circumstances surrounding it. any person who is being honest can understand that.

while I believe they should be able to build the mosque wherever they want, I am not going to blame or judge the people protesting for being upset about it.

5/26/2010 3:18:59 PM

Quote :

"any person who is being honest can understand that. "

Of course I understand it. It's still bigotry. It's still not okay.

5/26/2010 3:19:59 PM

Quote :

"while I believe they should be able to build the mosque wherever draw Muhammad however they want, I am not going to blame or judge the people protesting for being upset about it."

5/26/2010 3:21:02 PM

yet the same people demanding americans to be tolerant of a mosque next to WTC are the same type of americans who would be embarrassed to see McDonalds in the Louvre and apologize for how our culture is homogenizing the rest of the world.

5/26/2010 3:22:14 PM

Quote :

"yet the same people demanding americans to be tolerant of a mosque next to WTC are the same type of americans who would be embarrassed to see McDonalds in the Louvre and apologize for how our culture is homogenizing the rest of the world."

Maybe in your head

5/26/2010 3:24:17 PM

I GOTTA MAC ATTACK RIGHT NEXT TO THE DAVID STATUE, OK

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 3:26 PM. Reason : *]

5/26/2010 3:26:49 PM

nah bro, not in my head and u know it.

5/26/2010 3:29:08 PM

Quote :

"Of course I understand it. It's still bigotry. It's still not okay."

how is it bigotry? those people are not "intolerant" of the opinions or teachings of Islam. they dont want a representation of the murder of their loved ones built (literally) on top of their remains.

its emotion. not intolerance.

there are shades of gray, sir.

5/26/2010 3:32:02 PM

Quote :

"how is it bigotry? those people are not "intolerant" of the opinions or teachings of Islam. they dont want a representation of the murder of their loved ones built (literally) on top of their remains."

Except it's not a representation of the murder unless you're a bigot.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 3:32:15 PM

Islam does not represent murder, but the murderers on 9/11 loudly and dynamically proclaimed said murder in the name of Islam. fair or not, they are linked and you know that.

5/26/2010 3:39:29 PM

Quote :

"Islam does not represent murder, but the murderers on 9/11 loudly and dynamically proclaimed said murder in the name of Islam. fair or not, they are linked and you know that."

You're saying that emotional fervor whipped them into becoming bigots. So?

5/26/2010 3:44:42 PM

emotional fervor is behind 95% of legislation so atleast it would be consistant.

5/26/2010 3:56:09 PM

Quote :

"Don't be fucking obtuse just because you're ignorant and wrong"

Wat? I said there isn't a good reason to argue against the placing of the mosque there beyond the fact that we shouldn't build a new mosque anywhere.

How is this bigoted? It's obvious that I don't think we should build a new mosque, church, synagogue, Astrology hut, psychic medium center, center for paranormal research either.

There is nothing about that location or that mosque that precludes the building of the mosque at that specifically that location.

5/26/2010 4:06:04 PM

Quote :

"Wat?"

Quote :

"reasonable (don't kill me for using that word, McDanger)"

5/26/2010 4:07:46 PM

Oh, that was a joke.

5/26/2010 4:09:15 PM

NO JOKING. THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

5/26/2010 4:09:42 PM

What is an acceptable distance at which a mosque could be built?

5/26/2010 5:11:44 PM

32,000 miles.

5/26/2010 5:19:17 PM

72 inches for every life senselessly destroyed in the name of religion

5/26/2010 5:20:51 PM

Quote :

"Wrong. Suppose X causes Y. You and I both have access to the same observation; I conclude based on my observation that Y causes X. You conclude X causes Y. Who made the rational inference? Why? Somebody made a CORRECT inference but there's an important difference."

Rational thinking is a process. It only requires that one employ logic in drawing inferences and conclusions. It is entirely possible to produce incorrect conclusions from an otherwise rational thought process.

Quote :

"I "get" that nobody fucking did it before Aristotle."

People were drawing conclusions from two or more premises long before Aristotle. That the process had not been formalized is totally irrelevant. If you can't understand that, then you have no business studying philosophy, anthropology, or any other subject related to the human mind.

Quote :

"I am using the Western definition of the term."

No, you're not. I'm talking about rationality in the commonly understood sense of the term. You're trying to restrict its use to some archaic definition that you seem to have developed on the fly.

Quote :

"This makes religion anything but a "rational endeavor" at its inception, because there's no notion of rationality yet. What about this is hard for you to understand?"

I understand it perfectly well. It's a completely idiotic statement. The notion that rational thinking didn't exist until Aristotle is demonstrably false, yet it's the argument you're making.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 10:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2010 10:04:44 PM

Bahahahaha you can't win an argument with an idiot. Have fun being ignorant as shit, I guess. Tally, ho!

5/26/2010 11:26:26 PM

touche

5/27/2010 12:33:26 AM

Wow, OK, it's been a busy day with this thread.

Quote :

"But I have hope for humanity that given one less divisive attribute we could exist together more easily."

Quote :

"You sound just like some southern baptists I know when they describe how good it would be if everyone believed in Jesus"

I mean, yeah, both of these things are true. If everybody were the same there would be less things to fight over. People don't fight over things they have in common. Congratulations on figuring that one out.

Quote :

"HOW ABOUT DITCHING THE WHEEL (RELIGION)"

I think it's pretty clear from that post and others I've made following it that getting the world to ditch religion is pretty much just fantasy. You might as well have a plan based on humankind forever renouncing war, pornography, or recreational drugs.

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that morality without religion is impossible?"

Not necessarily. But even once you axe religion, it's not like we're all going to agree on morality. There won't even be much consensus on some of the gray areas. Which means that, ultimately, we'll still have people disagreeing with each other over big issues for reasons that are, at their root, basically ideological.

Quote :

"Except, for opposition to stem cell research, it’s one of the things you can definitively tie to religion (via polling)."

Correlation doesn't imply causation. Even if they say they oppose it for religious reasons, you have to wonder, "Are people that are drawn to religion also drawn to certain worldviews that, in the absence of religion, would still make them act in much the same way?"

Quote :

"What I would say is that German nationalism was a fairly important precursor, and incubator, for Nationalist Socialism."

Pretty much all countries have patriots and nationalists. Admittedly, not all countries have a martial history like Germany's -- but then, such a history would be one of the conditions involved. People don't choose their group's history. Unless now you want to tell me that Germans are genetically predisposed to solve their problems with violence (as I think more recent history seems to refute), you haven't got much here.

Quote :

"The twentieth century alone is filled with societies that have gone through difficult periods of economic of political victimization, yet a lot of them, probably even most of them, did not devolve into societies based on religious fundamentalism or homicidal race theories."

Way to oversimplify things. I've never claimed that a vague combination of "economic and political victimization" is what causes these problems. Specific things have to exist. For example, it's hard to have a genocide in a homogeneous country -- you need to have another group in your borders to discriminate against, normally one that's distributed within your borders in a specific fashion. The research on the matter is hardly scant.

Quote :

"Just because a variable is not exclusive in its ability to bring about a certain outcome does not mean that it cannot be "essential" to the equation."

If B can happen without A, then A is not essential to B. How is that idiotic?

Quote :

"You are suggesting that Muslims, slaves to their conditions, are incapable of adapting their worldview."

I am suggesting that ALL PEOPLE ARE, TO A LARGE EXTENT, SLAVES TO THEIR CONDITIONS. It can't be bigoted if I'm saying it about literally every group on Earth.

The West gets the good stuff you mention because the West got fucking lucky with its starting point. If you transplanted all of my Cracker ancestors to Australia 40,000 years ago then they'd be throwing rocks at Kangaroos until colonization, too.

There are, of course, a reasonable number of people scattered around the globe who can see the role such circumstances played in why the world is the way it is, which is why not every German was a Nazi (and why not every Nazi was even all that big an asshole), and why not everybody in this forum is a prick on an atheist crusade who likes to pick on Muslims.

---

...aaaand then after that McDanger kind of takes over so I'm gonna stop there.

5/27/2010 12:55:37 AM

Quote :

"I mean, yeah, both of these things are true. If everybody were the same there would be less things to fight over. People don't fight over things they have in common. Congratulations on figuring that one out."

I'm not promoting a world where everyone believes the same thing. I'm promoting one where they stop being deluded. People will continue to have many many differences and divisive elements. Get this through your head: I'm not going to give up on the grounds that other things than religion also make humanity suck.

Quote :

"Not necessarily. But even once you axe religion, it's not like we're all going to agree on morality. There won't even be much consensus on some of the gray areas. Which means that, ultimately, we'll still have people disagreeing with each other over big issues for reasons that are, at their root, basically ideological."

see above.

Quote :

"I think it's pretty clear from that post and others I've made following it that getting the world to ditch religion is pretty much just fantasy. You might as well have a plan based on humankind forever renouncing war, pornography, or recreational drugs. "

GrumpyGOP exposed as a defeatist! It's also a fantasy to think the world will ever give up oil dependence and pollution, so no sense trying to change anyone.

5/27/2010 7:55:08 AM

You're not going to change anyones mind about their oil dependency by telling them they're idiots for using a single drop. You're only making the worst ones more obstinate and more combative.

5/27/2010 8:46:35 AM

right. Removing oil dependency should be sold as an economic and security issue rather than an environmental one.

5/27/2010 9:50:43 AM

GrumpyGOP:

Quote :

"ALL PEOPLE ARE, TO A LARGE EXTENT, SLAVES TO THEIR CONDITIONS"

Quote :

"People don't choose their group's history."

Quote :

"If B can happen without A, then A is not essential to B."

Your thesis, as I read it, and as I think you state rather bluntly in the first quote, is that societies are formed by a variety of conditions, but conditions of the purely non-ideological sort. Ideology is simply coincidental to, or perhaps a byproduct of, those non-ideological conditions. Therefore, any attempt to change those societies must deal strictly with non-ideological conditions.

Is that about right? If it is, then my problem with it is this: You rightly point out that people living today don't choose their history, assuming that by history you mean events that came before their time. However, wouldn't you agree that people living today do have at least some measure of ability to choose their future, just as their ancestors did?

And as for whether a variable is essential or not, let me put it this way:

Assume A=1, B=1, and C=2.

Now take the equation 1 + A = 2.

It is true that A can be swapped with B without fundamentally changing the equation. However, if you were to remove A without replacing it, or if you were to replace it with C, or if you were to significantly modify it (A+1), you will have fundamentally changed the equation. In this sense, A is essential. If it is more agreeable to you if I say, "A - or its exact equivalent - is essential," then okay. (I think it's superfluous, but if it resolves a semantic dispute, then fine)

My thesis, then, is this: If a society's prevailing ideological set is removed, replaced, or significantly altered, it will have the effect of fundamentally changing the society. And I do believe that people have the ability to undertake such a venture. I think that's the story of civilization, frankly.

Of course, ideology is not the only factor at play, nor is religion the only component of a society's prevailing ideological set. But ideology and religion are factors, often major ones, particularly in the Muslim world.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 10:08:56 AM

Quote :

"And I do believe that people have the ability to undertake such a venture been forced to submit to new regimes with the penalty of death. I think that's the story of civilization, frankly."

Fixed

5/27/2010 10:36:36 AM

You've heard of democratic and populist revolutions, right?

5/27/2010 10:40:34 AM

In the context of "the story of civilization", I think non-religious populist revolutions are statistical outliers.

5/27/2010 10:48:47 AM

populist uprisings are always lead by someone with their own agenda. anyone not behind that leaders ideals will be crushed by their followers.

5/27/2010 10:52:34 AM

Quote :

"And as for whether a variable is essential or not, let me put it this way: Assume A=1, B=1, and C=2. Now take the equation 1 + A = 2. It is true that A can be swapped with B without fundamentally changing the equation. However, if you were to remove A without replacing it, or if you were to replace it with C, or if you were to significantly modify it (A+1), you will have fundamentally changed the equation. In this sense, A is essential. If it is more agreeable to you if I say, "A - or its exact equivalent - is essential," then okay. (I think it's superfluous, but if it resolves a semantic dispute, then fine) My thesis, then, is this: If a society's prevailing ideological set is removed, replaced, or significantly altered, it will have the effect of fundamentally changing the society. And I do believe that people have the ability to undertake such a venture. I think that's the story of civilization, frankly. Of course, ideology is not the only factor at play, nor is religion the only component of a society's prevailing ideological set. But ideology and religion are factors, often major ones, particularly in the Muslim world."

5/27/2010 11:02:20 AM

Quote :

"In the context of "the story of civilization", I think non-religious populist revolutions are statistical outliers."

Without a doubt. Nevertheless, the story of civilization is still a story about changing philosophical attitudes towards governance, even if the people doing the thinking were an elite few. Indeed, the expansion of the political class is also the result of changing philosophical attitudes.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 11:03:17 AM

not to mention automation and vastly increased leisure time (i.e. that's the real reason)

5/27/2010 2:16:06 PM

Quote :

"Your thesis, as I read it, and as I think you state rather bluntly in the first quote, is that societies are formed by a variety of conditions, but conditions of the purely non-ideological sort."

Ideology isn't a condition, it's a trait, a characteristic.

Quote :

"Therefore, any attempt to change those societies must deal strictly with non-ideological conditions."

Nah, you can do whatever you want. It just won't work very well unless you change the other things, or the popular perception of them.

I suppose, for example, that you could work to improve Arab-Israeli relations, which be less about ideology and more about the perception of an outside threat.

Quote :

"However, wouldn't you agree that people living today do have at least some measure of ability to choose their future, just as their ancestors did?"

Maybe a little. Obviously every group is going to have dissenters, and when those people influence the fundamental issues shaping a society then they can willfully bring about change.

And that's me being generous. Taking my religious beliefs out of the equation, then I pretty quickly become convinced that we don't really choose anything, and if you knew the exact position, speed, etc. of every electron in the universe at this very moment then you could predict our future down to the smallest detail.

Quote :

"If it is more agreeable to you if I say, "A - or its exact equivalent - is essential," then okay."

Now we have lazarus apparently claiming that Koran is identical to the governing document of the Ku Klux Klan (which is called the "Kloran," incidentally) and that Islam is an exact equivalent to the secular socialism of the Tamil Tigers.

Because, I mean, violent extremism is the outcome, so in order to get it you have to plug in exact equivalents into the equation.

5/27/2010 2:42:56 PM

Quote :

"And that's me being generous. Taking my religious beliefs out of the equation, then I pretty quickly become convinced that we don't really choose anything, and if you knew the exact position, speed, etc. of every electron in the universe at this very moment then you could predict our future down to the smallest detail."

And? The details are complex enough to say that we practically choose things.

I actually prescribe to this notion, by the way, but you probably already knew that.

5/27/2010 2:50:24 PM

In what possible way do we actually choose things? I don't follow your line of thinking here: "Man, this is really hard to understand, so let's just say we're in control of our decisions."

5/27/2010 3:08:16 PM

We are essentially finite state machines, but the number of conditions is sufficiently large to create the illusion of free will.

The combinations of each of your internal desires, external stimulae, as well as the granularity of your states (how often you make "decisions") are so great that they are practically infinite.

So from our perspective, we have free will. From an observer external to our Universe that could possibly see all of the above, they could predict exactly what we would choose at any given time.

As I said, it's practical to describe this process as choice because from our perspective it is choice.

5/27/2010 3:23:56 PM