Catch-Phrase Philosophy
Topic: Lectures On Doubt

Skeptics Boot Camp (II)

Nothing reveals ignorance more readily to the informed than the use of popular slogans which are believed to bear great philosophical significance but in reality, are either quite meaningless, ambiguous, or just don't hold the gravity those to whom the slogan is popular among assume.  In this installment we'll go over a few loosely related catch phrases.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid these may have been popularized by atheists and skeptics. Though their use is growing uncritically amongst amateur apologists and if I had to keep a tally, probably have been used more often by believers than critics on the message boards I post at. The danger in these is that they are often used in the form: (catch phrase), therefore, whatever I've argued is true.

"You can't prove a negative!" or
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

These are not concepts you will ever read about in philosophy of science discussions.  They are vague, loose formulations of the problem of induction (probably) and really, they are just false.  Is the statement, "There are no living Tyrannosaurus" any less of a fact than, "There are living lions and tigers?"  If you'd been arrested and tried in a court of law for murder, and not a shred of evidence whatsoever could be linked to you, should that not count as "evidence" in your favor? 

The problem of induction holds that just because the sun rises today, it doesn't logically follow that it will rise tomorrow.  If one were to come up empty handed after searching two thousand years for a Dodo bird, that wouldn't guarantee no Dodo birds exist.  All the experiments in the world seemed to confirm Newtonian mechanics, nevertheless along came Relativity.  Same problem.  So here we have three examples, the first is a "positive" that can't escape induction, the second a "negative" and the final, sort of an inversion where "proving a negative" comes with more certainty than proving a positive.

"...burden of proof.."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"Burden of Proof" may have a place in the rules of a formal debate or in academic convention, but is there really a universal standard for assigning "burden of proof" in any given real-world argument?  What criteria is there for determining the most "extraordinary claim?" The problem is, those who assign the burden seem to believe the force of the assignment comes by way of security of their own position.  But it's quite obvious that, historically, the burden of proof doesn't necessarily lie with the most "extraordinary" claim with respect to some universal rules of evidence because the "ordinary claim" is often just the popular claim.  From what we know today about astronomy, Galileo should have been able to scoff at his peers and demand them to bring the evidence on for the geocentric model, sit back, and wait.  Obviously, independent of how wrong the geocentric model was, Galileo clearly had the "burden of proof," and his claim was in fact, the "extraordinary" one.

Skeptics shouldn't merely dismiss the ideas of believers and pretend to wait patiently for the evidence they know will never come.  They should be anxiously engaged in demonstrating how wrong the beliefs are.

"Ockham's Razor tells us..."

Ockham was a key figure in philosophy and it's true that simplicity should be a goal of any theory.  I'm not knocking Ockham here at all, but rather slogans that substitute appeal to Ockham for argument.  It's very difficult to conjure up real-world situations where the deciding factor is Ockham's razor.  Assumptions that we make can be big factors in what constitutes "simplicity" in the first place and it's those assumptions which seem to me, tip the balance in the mind of those appealing to Ockham, and not parsimony per se.

To sum up, any of these catch-phrases could be merely thrown out for rhetorical flair in context of a very cogent argument. We all use catch phrases out of habit at some time or another.  But more often than not, the slogans above will serve as a warning flag for a problematic argument ahead.

Abusing Logical Fallacies
Topic: Lectures On Doubt

Skeptic's Boot Camp

The reasoning of skeptics, on average, should be a cut above that of religious believers. To this end, I've decided to post a few installments discussing some basic problems I've noticed in the day-to-day argumentation I follow online. I hope these suggestions will be helpful to especially, new skeptics, not just as a lesson in what to avoid themselves, but as immediate clues to identify an opponent who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Abusing Logical Fallacies

To my satisfaction, I've noticed skeptics, even new skeptics are far less likely to abuse a logical fallacy than an apologist. It seems to me that it has become part of the apologist culture to view themselves as master logicians and not hesitate to point out the supposed fallacies of their skeptical opponents. It's my belief, that skeptics should restrain themselves from identifying by name the fallacies of believers and just point out plainly what is wrong with the argument. Spending too much time pointing out logical fallacies looks petty and like you're trying to hard to impress everyone. It's not unlike fanatically pointing out spelling and grammar errors. Pointing out logical fallacies by name, should be reserved for those believers most worthy of scorn, or to teach a lesson to those believers who erroneously point out fallacies in others.

Straw Man: Look for this accusation being used broadly to cover virtually anything the believer doesn't like about an opponents argument. Note that the "absurd" portion of a correctly formulated reductio ad absurdum argument is often misidentified as a "straw man." This seems to be a reocurring error in FAIR moderating calls. Saying, "If a Mormon believes X, then he must be a Q" is different from saying, "If a Mormon believes X for reasons Y, then how do you deny a Q from believing Z for reasons Y?"

Begging The Question: This refers to circular reasoning, not "raising a question." Even if brute ignorance secures this phrase acceptence in casual vernacular, it should be avoided. The biggest problem I see is that those who typically use this terminology seem to think that they are pointing out a fallacy. They've heard the term in conjuction with fallacies from somewhere and reason that it means if what the opponent is saying is true, it raises very hard questions that the opponent probably can't answer. Also, unless you've already established a respected persona, it will take you down a notch in the eyes of the lurkers who think you don't know what it means.

Ad Hominem: A personal insult doesn't constitute a fallacy. It has to be suggested that from the insult, it follows that the insultee's argument doesn't work.

Appeal To Authority: It's ok to cite an authority to back a claim. And there is a lot of gray area here, but the problem is when the stature of the authority overshadows the actual content of the claim. Also, be aware of the appeal to (false) authority. This happens frequently with apologetics groups. Where experts in one area, wanting to help with the cause of faith, apply their skills to areas where that expertise counts far less, or not at all.

False Dichotomy: Many have been wrongly charged with a false dichotomy because the accuser doesn't understand that the word "or" has both an exclusive and non-exclusive sense. Make sure what's presented really is, first, a dichotomy before inspecting it for a fallacy. Often times, it's just natural to give two or three options of what's in mind as examples, not meaning to be exclusive.

"You can eat oranges or bananas to get your vitamins."

"What, you're saying I can't get vitamins from apples?!!"

Also keep in mind, that sometimes a fallacy like this will be knowingly committed by the author for rhetorical effect or humor. Pointing it out triumphantly might make it look like you didn't quite "get it."

Dembski Dismissed
Topic: Nothing Bears Witness

Irreducible complexity

At the beginning of a paper where Dembski introduces some of his basic ideas, he gives the following illustration of "specified complexity, "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."¹ (emphasis added) At the end of the same article, he asks if nature exhibits actual specified complexity. He looks to Michael Behe and proposes, "If such systems are, as Behe claims, highly improbable and thus genuinely complex with respect to the Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection and if they are specified in virtue of their highly specific function (Behe looks to such systems as the bacterial flagellum), then a door is reopened for design in science that has been closed for well over a century." (emphasis added) Of course, according to Dembski himself in the first quote, in order to claim nature is "specified," he has to provide us with "an independently given pattern" first before we start talking about the probabilities of conformance to this pattern. What is the independently given pattern Dembski and his God-fearing friends have discovered as a standard to compare nature to?

Semiotics and Incommensurability

Dembski and disciples point to SETI as a scientifically accepted search for specified complexity. So how does SETI do it? It's been suggested that with the discovery of a narrow-band "Contact" style transmission, we could infer design as such a naturally occurring signal is hitherto unknown. Of course, at this juncture, we've effectively moved the goal posts. Remember there are two parts to specified complexity, gleaning from the above:

1) Highly improbable with respect to known natural mechanisms
2) Specified (conforming to an independently given pattern)

This criteria conforms merely to 1). Which is why it would be ideal for SETI. They don't need to compare it to something they don't have knowledge of, the aliens' minds and intentions. SETI, unlike ID high on DI, understands the problems associated with 2). Douglas Vakoch of SETI argues, "In the absence of knowledge of physical and cultural clues, communication between two species can be almost impossible."² And in the closing paragraph of this paper, Vakoch concludes, "As much as we try to present the phenomena in themselves, it is difficult to bracket - or even identify - the presuppositions that we make when identifying the phenomena we assume to be of universal significance." The parallel to ID is clear. Without a simple de facto standard (like knowing the conventionally defined symbols which signify a win on a slot machine or knowledge of spelling english words) we must extrapolate universal principles of signification from our own experience. And that should be highly problematic. Yet for IDers, it's a walk in the park. If a flagella works like a rotor, then it really must be a rotor. It's almost like, if scientists were to discover a gigantic "H" on Mars, it really must be the letter "H." Perhaps the Martians were in the middle of scribbling out the word "Help" in a desperate plea just before their demise?

1. Explaining Intelligent Design, William Dembski, 1999.
2. The View from a Distant Star: Challenges of Interstellar Message-Making, Douglas A. Vakoch, 1999.

Shall We Sin?
Topic: The Miracle Of Sin
Shall we sin? Absolutely!

One of the things I've noticed with some of my fellow apostates is they resist enjoying the many pleasures the world has to offer. Contrary to what many TBMs think, apostates often times have difficulty embracing a worldly life. Part of that resistance I think, is a belief that they need to be able to say, "I lived the gospel for 25 years, I went on a mission, I never did anything wrong, I paid a full tithing. When I left the church it wasn't because I wanted to sin or because I was bitter, but because I had studied the issues and made an informed decision."

There are a couple of problems with this reasoning. First of all, it's a Mormon belief that the presence of sin accounts for all apostacy. Those who have rejected the many absurd claims of the church don't need to apply this standard to themselves. Sins, emotions, personal choices, and lifestyle are always a part of apostacy. Just not for the reasons church members think they are. It doesn't matter if it's Mormonism, Scientology or the Navy, someone who breaks community protocols and alienate themselves from the group, even in subtle ways, is always in a position where they can more objectively evaluate the institutions they belong to. This is not inherently good or bad. Suffice it to say, there is no inherent shame in "sin" being a part of the exit story.

So yes, it's ok to sin! No Mormon is ever going to believe you didn't! The key to remember is that just because other factors besides reason contribute to apostacy, that doesn't mean the apostacy isn't justified on the very logical grounds given. In fact, as I have argued, it often takes some real life turmoil in order to get our brains to question deeply held assumptions about the world.

FARMS Admits they exist for Faith
Topic: I'm Sorry I believe
Skeptics know that FARMS exists primarily as a faith promoting institution for already faithful members, the actual research done in the name of Mormon studies being a secondary issue to the real issue: letting faithful members know that really smart people believe in the church! If really smart people aren't scathed by the firey darts of the critics, why should the lay member be? This is, in the end, what the entire corpus of Mormon scholarship amounts to. And the truth be told, it's the apologists themselves who've defined it this way.

A glimpse into the mind of the apologist can be found in Truman Madsen's introduction to the cornerstone of Mormon Intellectualism, Hugh Nibley's Timely and the Timeless. He observes, "Classicist Jacob Geerings remarked shortly before his death: "Hugh Nibley is simply encyclopedic. Though I do not agree with his views I hesitate to challenge him; he knows too much." (xii)

That's right. High Nibley was the greatest genius that ever lived. And guess what? He was Mormon. It doesn't matter if he was right. He was smarter than his critics were, therefore, even though there may be those who on intellectual grounds are allowed to not believe in the church, they certainly don't have the right to challenge it! Or so the subtext tells us.

This proto-truth of Madsen's has matured into a full blown operational paradigm for today's apologetic arm of Mormonism. That's right, FARMS exists to inspire the faithful with confidence, that it's not just the everyday Joe who swallows it all hook, line, and sinker. FARMS admission to this truth is readily apparent to anyone who has witnessed, or has been a part of debates online with FARMS reps. What is the first thing a critic learns in one of these debates? That the critic isn't qualified to participate. The apologetic work in question, has been authored by an expert in a related field who holds three or four doctorate degrees. The critic in question is not a philologist, a Hebraist, and Egyptologist, or any other kind of -ist who can be taken seriously to comment on the most recently discovered link between the ancient world and the Book of Mormon. In fact, there are probably only a few hundred, or thousand people in the world who have the incredibly specialized training necessary to thoroughly evaluate the claim in question.

Of course, it can't be suggested, that the other twenty people on the planet smart enough to have an opinion on the subject have no interest whatsoever. That the paper in question will never receive the same kind of academic review that the author's other, non-Mormon apologetic publications receive on a regular basis. That would be disingenuous to point out since those other experts just, for whatever reason, don't have an interest in Mormonism. We can't let their silence speak anything on the matter.

So what then, could possibly be the point of FARMS? We know 1)The experts in academia qualified to critique their claims aren't interested in doing so. 2)The non-specialized critics who do have an interest aren't qualified. So who is the audience of FARMS? Well, that's simple. The common LDS folks who shop at Deseret Book where FARMS publications are sold. But how much do the common LDS folks know about philology, Egyptology, and near eastern studies? Nothing. That's right. The target audience of FARMS is no more qualified to have an opinion on what FARMS puts out than the non-specialist critics FARMS snubs their noses at. If it takes a PhD to critically evaluate the link between Hebrew grammar and some word in 2nd Nephi Smith made up, then it's pointless for brother Johnson to even buy the book in the first place. That is, unless the underlying reason for bro. Johnson to read the book has nothing to do with critically evaluating its contents and has everything to do with bro. Johnson being impressed by all the smart people who believe the church is true.

Index
Ethics
(I)God is Morality

Evolution
Dembski Dismissed

Godel
(I)Godel
(II)The Basic Idea

Postmodernism
(I)Five Points

Skeptics Boot Camp
(I)Abusing Fallacies
(II)Catch-Phrase Philosophy
(III)All or Nothing
(IV)Faith is Bad

Gödel (II) The Outline
Topic: Godel

Here is an example of a simple axiomatic system:

A v B = B v A
A = C

The first statements reads, "A or B equals B or A." From these two sentences, we can create other sentences, like A v B = B v C. If every statement that can be expressed within this system can be constructed by various combinations of the two statements, then the system is said to be complete. This trivial system is certainly complete. The system logicians were especially interested in is one which could reduce mathematics (arithmetic) generally to basic propositions of which the above are examples. But the system must be complete in order to be successful. The implication of the system not being complete would be that there are mathematical truths which can't be proven. Plainly speaking, the goal here is to be able to "know everything" by drawing deductions from trivial assumptions. Gödel demonstrated a statement that can be expressed within the logical foundations of mathematics which can't be derived from the system, rendering any logic powerful enough to do math generally, incomplete. Let's fast forward through the rules of the game and all the key plays necessary for the setup and concentrate on the structure of the final slam dunk which brought down the glass.

(Loosely following Braithwaite's Introduction)

Important Definitions

v Gen q (v,w): The q (v,w) part means the variables "v" and "w" hold a relation to each other "q". The "v Gen" part means to substitute other variables for "v" in this relation.

Gödel number: An actual number which he has decided represents a formula - kind of reversing the roles of numbers and formulas. Why a number opposed to just another variable will make sense in the next section.

Start with v Gen q (v,w). We will define q as "not a proof." So this reads, q is a relation between "v" and "w" such that for all Gödel numbers (representing formulas) that could be substituted for v, v is NOT a proof of w. Now let's substitute the Gödel number for the formula "v Gen q (v, w)" into w, let's say that's 23. So we get, v Gen q (v, 23) which means, "For all Gödel numbers of formulas that we could substitute for v (all formulas), none of these formulas are proof of the formula with the Gödel number 23. Well, if no formula is a proof of the formula known trivially as 23, then there is no proof for formula 23. Of course this formula that can't be proven is "v Gen q (v, w)" - itself. So this is the formulae which can be rightly constructed, but declares of itself, that it can't be proven. He then shows that if the formula could be proven, the negation of the formula could also be proven, making the foundations of mathematics inconsistent. So we can choose between incomplete yet consistent and complete but inconsistent. Finally, he shows that if we get tricky and try to assume this formally undecidable proposition away, another can be constructed and this ad infinitum.

In The Matrix Reloaded, it's revealed that Neo is, obviously, the Gödel sentence of the Matrix. There had been prior versions of the Matrix and every one had an anomaly that would crop up. The architect had never been able to fix the problem by integrating prior anomalies (Gödel statements) into the structure of the system. A new one would always appear.