Comments on: Help Shannon on the road to recovery

By: Astrolink [Global Edition] » Update: Shannon Malloy | Latest astronomy news in 11 languages

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:32:54 +0000

[...] and family got involved. I took some time to think through the situation, and decided to apologize, post a followup (which got a modicum of attention), and then, in an effort to turn a negative into a positive, set [...]

By: Twyla

Twyla — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:15:40 +0000

Update on Shannon:

There is a Benefit planned for June 30th. If you would like information let me know. Shannon wanted to say “THANK YOU” to everyone who donated. As of today, The money has not been recieved in Shannons Fund account, but as soon as it is we will let you know how much was raised! Shannon started therapy on her throat & hopes to be swallowing by the 4th of July. Your charity will help her achieve that! Thank you again,
Twyla
tat2baby@msn.com

By: Ken G

Ken G — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:24:28 +0000

Now we move to a simply absurd point:
“That an individual wishes to take (as most do) â€œsomeâ€ of a religion and relegate the rest to the dustbin is well within their rights. But itâ€™s rather dishonest.”
If that were true, there would be a heck of a lot of dishonest scientists out there. Or are you not aware that all scientists do precisely the above when they consider various options for theories to apply? The real issue is what subjective basis is applied to make that choice, as I’ve pointed out many times. In science, that subjective basis eventually does become objective– but that’s because science has objective goals and is all about obtaining objective knowledge. Religion is simply not in that position, the issues are too difficult and quite likely too subjective.

So in summary:
“I welcome any/all response(s) from you on all things Iâ€™ve written – this dialog is fun to me, after all! – but I do wonder why, now that my position is hopefully truly clear, that youâ€™d consider yourself in disagreement to me.”
I’d say that’s a pretty arrogant claim, given that I have above clearly demonstrated a major logical flaw in *every single one* of your paragraphs! So yes, I’m afraid I stand quite unconvinced by this parade of illogic. And it doesn’t help much when you trot out obvious strawman arguments like:
“I state reasonable presumptions based on evidence. Just like Iâ€™d be willing to sing â€œthe sunâ€™ll come outâ€¦ tomorrow!â€ It may not, but based on past experience and evidence and understanding of the cosmos, this seems a reasonable presumption.”
It may come as a surprise, but I actually have lived in this world, so I do know that making presumptions based on past experience is often helpful. Indeed I’ve never said otherwise. What I said is that this model of human cognition might not actually be the only way to go in all situations for all people. There might actually be perfectly rational uses of a human mind that don’t fit that description. As you claim to refute that, you certainly cannot simply provide an example of when past experience is a useful guide for future objective predictions. No, that would be quite a logical shortfall to think that’s a real argument– it’s just a strawman. Now, I’ll bet you’ve pointed out a few strawman arguments in your day– why do you think you’d now stood to one yourself? The crumbling problem again?

Still, there is hope, as you close with:
“To me, making an unreasonable presumption based on feelings, fears, wishes, â€œopen-mindednessâ€, that goes against past experience and/or the current evidence at hand is dishonest. ”
The most important words in that sentence, and probably your entire post, are “to me”. Perhaps you finally do get it, after all.

By: Ken G

Ken G — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:10:37 +0000

To continue, we must be thorough in our evaluation:
“And my assertion is that faith, as practiced/believed by most, is founded on (at least perceived) objectivity. ”
So now we have argument by assertion? And exactly by what authority do you expect to be able to assert this? Why is anyone supposed to think this is an educated remark, are you perhaps an expert in world religions? A theology major? Or did you have a friend once who went to church? Furthermore, why on Earth did you insert the phrase “at least perceived”? If we are discussing whether all that is subjective arises entirely from all that is objective, why on Earth would anyone’s “perceptions” make a hill of beans of difference? You have lost me there.

Then:
“As always, indeed: there may be something(s) â€œsupernaturalâ€ in existence, but thereâ€™s been no evidence to that point.”
To make sense, this remark must only be referring to *objective* evidence. This is of course merely a return to the same circular logic I’ve already exposed as such.

More later.

By: Ken G

Ken G — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:15:05 +0000

And continuing, we find this gem:
“Without vastly more powerful simulation devices – computers of some sort, probably – we have an ethical barrier to much more in-depth study of the *human* brain; research on other simians has its own downsides, and lack of feedback – detailed communication between subject and observer.”
OK, now that’s simply an apologetic for science. You are saying research has not yet shown, what you already know, because of ethical conundrums. This suffices for an argument in your neck of the woods?

Then:
“But I challenge that what we have discovered already points to Rome: that the â€œwhole greater than the sum of its partsâ€, â€œconsciousnessâ€, is an incredible, but not unknowable consequence of the objective stuff – tissues and chemicals – weâ€™ve identified.”
A classic example of argument by assumption. You assume that because progress has been made, we are on the “road to Rome”. And if I increase my vertical leap, I’m “on the road” to jumping to the Moon? Same logic.

Then comes a personal favorite:
“Or are you simply â€œkeeping your mind openâ€?
Philosophically possible. Rationally dishonest.”
To which I respond, at exactly what point did it become “dishonest” to “keep an open mind”? Perhaps you might wish to review the history of science.

More later.

By: Ken G

Ken G — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:13:52 +0000

This one’s especially important because it is a concrete example:
“Various brain injuries show that, indeed, physical parts of the brain are responsible for not just functions of consciousness, but aspects of it as well – temperament, for example.”
OK, so now we are to associate temperament with consciousness, as though it was a fundamental property of same. Funny, I thought consciousness had to do with awareness, whereas temperament was judged by behavior. Again you are mixing the the subjective and the objective. Bees can be “angry”, a temperament, without being conscious of it. Conversely, I can imagine something that is conscious but has no temperament. So finding a physical connection with temperament is a secondary concern here.

Other examples, you mean perhaps?

By: Ken G

Ken G — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:59:19 +0000

Let’s continue to follow the argument presented:
“When various parts of a brain are used for reason, why would it be reasonable to presume that reason itself could/would not be a product of the same grey matter?”
Um, to analyze the logical content of this remark, simply read it again, let’s make some simple substitutions to see if it could fly in other situations:
When various odd integers are used for arithmetic, why would it be reasonable to presume that arithmetic itself could/would not be a product of the same odd integers?

Gotta go now.