Welcome to WeAreSMRT.com. Click here to register

Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

As a group, many of us love to read. The reading group meets here.

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby E-lad » Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:02 pm

Chris wrote:
agrammatos wrote:
Chris wrote:...The Principle of non-contradiction must be held tentatively. Why? Because paradox's violate it. So it is generally true but not universally the case.

Now when we get to the case of a singularity we are speaking of a state where - like at the quantum level - aristotelian logic ceases to apply....


Chris, please give me a paradox that you believe violates the LNC. Also, please elaborate on your point regarding the quantum level. I don't see why Aristotelian logic doesn't apply when speaking of the singularity.


Ok. Tilia handled your second question I'll handle the one concerning paradoxes.

This one's from Antisthenes:
"What I am now saying is a lie".

If the above sentence is true then it is false. But if it's false then it's true. So is it true or false?

Here's another. The Sorites Paradox.
Let's say we have a small heap of sand. Now I take away one grain. Has it stopped being a heap? Of course not you reply. Then I take away another and another. At some point it must stop being a heap but then I can reply so the difference between a heap and not a heap is one grain of sand? But a grain isn't a heap is it?

Here's a modern one.
A barber states: "I'm a proude citizen of Seville & I'm the man who shaves all and only those men in Seville who don't shave themselves". But hold on.
If he shaves himself then it follows from what he said above that he doesn't shave himself since he shaves all and only those who don't shave themselves. But if he doesn't shave himself then he does since he shaves only those men who don't shave themselves. So does the barber shave all and only those men who don't shave themselves or doesn't he?

Confusing isn't it?


Or, when does a cucumber become a pickle?
Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.- Horace Walpole
User avatar
E-lad
 
Posts: 14772
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Northwestern Pennsylvania

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby agrammatos » Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:32 pm

Tilia wrote:
agrammatos wrote:Chris, please give me a paradox that you believe violates the LNC. Also, please elaborate on your point regarding the quantum level. I don't see why Aristotelian logic doesn't apply when speaking of the singularity.


Photons


Photons are paradoxical? They have an explanation which we don't happen to understand right now, but there is nothing logically contradictory about photons.

I suppose you mean that because photons behave like waves and particles that is contradictory? This misconception of the LNC is encountered rather often. I've even had Christians ask me about it relative to the Triune God (one God in three divine Persons).

The LNC states that A cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. So, a photon being both a wave and a particle is not a contradiction. So, what would be a contradiction relative to a photon? If...

a photon was a particle and not a particle the same time and in the same sense, to elaborate...
a photon possessed properties of a particle and did not possess any properties of a particle at the same time and in the same sense, or...
a photon was a wave and not a wave at the same time and in the same sense, to elaborate...
a photon possessed properties of a wave and did not possess any properties of a wave at the same time and in the same sense, but...
a photon being both a wave and a particle at the same time but in a different sense is *not* a violation of the LNC.

hope this helps to clear up a very common misunderstanding about the LNC.
Last edited by agrammatos on Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
soli Deo gloria
User avatar
agrammatos
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby agrammatos » Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:42 pm

Chris wrote:
agrammatos wrote:
Chris wrote:...The Principle of non-contradiction must be held tentatively. Why? Because paradox's violate it. So it is generally true but not universally the case.

Now when we get to the case of a singularity we are speaking of a state where - like at the quantum level - aristotelian logic ceases to apply....


Chris, please give me a paradox that you believe violates the LNC. Also, please elaborate on your point regarding the quantum level. I don't see why Aristotelian logic doesn't apply when speaking of the singularity.


Ok. Tilia handled your second question I'll handle the one concerning paradoxes.

This one's from Antisthenes:
"What I am now saying is a lie".

If the above sentence is true then it is false. But if it's false then it's true. So is it true or false?

Here's another. The Sorites Paradox.
Let's say we have a small heap of sand. Now I take away one grain. Has it stopped being a heap? Of course not you reply. Then I take away another and another. At some point it must stop being a heap but then I can reply so the difference between a heap and not a heap is one grain of sand? But a grain isn't a heap is it?

Here's a modern one.
A barber states: "I'm a proude citizen of Seville & I'm the man who shaves all and only those men in Seville who don't shave themselves". But hold on.
If he shaves himself then it follows from what he said above that he doesn't shave himself since he shaves all and only those who don't shave themselves. But if he doesn't shave himself then he does since he shaves only those men who don't shave themselves. So does the barber shave all and only those men who don't shave themselves or doesn't he?

Confusing isn't it?


Chris, I'm familiar with the examples of that you cited - I've used them in an apologetics course I taught at our mid-week mtg of our lil' local assembly in 2010-2011. However, they are not usually, in my experience used in the fashion that you used them. They were employed in the logic and critical thinking course I took years ago to illustrate *not* violations of the LNC, but to illustrate the irrationality of attempting to violate or circumvent the LNC.

The LNC doesn't state that one can't come up with whimsical contradictory statements, but rather that contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

If one is willing to be irrational (not you, you have already demonstrated to me that you are quite rational and a very clear thinker to boot, as well as quite knowledgeable in areas where I am not), then one can believe such statements or to use them to attempt to circumvent the LNC.

Your "heap" and "grain" examples suffers from an informal logical fallacy - depending upon the way one looks at the problem, it would be either the fallacy of composition or the fallacy of division. As such, it is an invalid problem for the purposes which we are speaking of.

Chris, my guess is that you probably were just misled by a poor teacher or resource which is why you remembered these examples and used them as you did.

Thank again, my friend, for the chance to exchange knowledge. As always you make me, "Think, think, think." I thank you for that.
soli Deo gloria
User avatar
agrammatos
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby agrammatos » Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:50 pm

zilch wrote:Chris- yep. It's important to note that there's nothing physically impossible about the barber who doesn't shave himself- it's just that words are capable of coming up with stuff that doesn't make sense. But the world is first, words are secondary and merely descriptive, not pre- or proscriptive of reality.


Bingo!!!!
soli Deo gloria
User avatar
agrammatos
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby Chris » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:27 pm

agrammatos wrote:
Chris, I'm familiar with the examples of that you cited - I've used them in an apologetics course I taught at our mid-week mtg of our lil' local assembly in 2010-2011. However, they are not usually, in my experience used in the fashion that you used them. They were employed in the logic and critical thinking course I took years ago to illustrate *not* violations of the LNC, but to illustrate the irrationality of attempting to violate or circumvent the LNC.

The LNC doesn't state that one can't come up with whimsical contradictory statements, but rather that contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

If one is willing to be irrational (not you, you have already demonstrated to me that you are quite rational and a very clear thinker to boot, as well as quite knowledgeable in areas where I am not), then one can believe such statements or to use them to attempt to circumvent the LNC.

What you've said is in fact not true sir. Knowledge may be absolute, objective [and tentative], or subjective. If knowledge of any type is absolute it is true in all times and in all places where it may be applied. Since Aristotelian logic cannot be applied to paradoxes successfully then it follows that Aristotelian logic no longer meets the requirements of absolute knowledge - i.e. true in all times and places where it may be applied. No irrationality need be entered into.

Your "heap" and "grain" examples suffers from an informal logical fallacy - depending upon the way one looks at the problem, it would be either the fallacy of composition or the fallacy of division. As such, it is an invalid problem for the purposes which we are speaking of.

Chris, my guess is that you probably were just misled by a poor teacher or resource which is why you remembered these examples and used them as you did.

Incorrect once again. The sorites paradox has been recognised as a true paradox for hundreds of years. I'm afraid your philosophical training has been a bit lacking in this area. Might I suggest a work such as:
http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary ... 538&sr=1-2


Thank again, my friend, for the chance to exchange knowledge. As always you make me, "Think, think, think." I thank you for that.
Last edited by Chris on Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
If perchance I have offended, think but this, and all is mended, that you have but slumbered here, while a vision did appear. A Midsummer Night's Dream
User avatar
Chris
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:02 am
Location: Victoria, Australia

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby Chris » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:38 pm

zilch wrote:Chris- yep. It's important to note that there's nothing physically impossible about the barber who doesn't shave himself- it's just that words are capable of coming up with stuff that doesn't make sense. But the world is first, words are secondary and merely descriptive, not pre- or proscriptive of reality.


Others have tried that with paradoxes zilch...it doesn't work. Why?
All knowledge is transmitted by words and logic may be said to be true if it correctly models reality. Now the description of the barber appears to model reality [at least that is the claim]. Each of the sentences used are gramatically correct and appear to possess truth value. That being the case they should be either true or false. But they are both. Fuzzy logic can account for this but Aristotelian logic cannot. That being the case it follows that aristotelian logic cannot be absolute truth [i.e. true in all times and places].

In any caseI am merely using paradoxes to highlight the fact that the Principle of non-contradiction is not an absolute truth.
If perchance I have offended, think but this, and all is mended, that you have but slumbered here, while a vision did appear. A Midsummer Night's Dream
User avatar
Chris
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:02 am
Location: Victoria, Australia

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby zilch » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:21 am

I don't think we disagree here, chris. At least not absolutely.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15234
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby agrammatos » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:07 pm

Chris wrote:
agrammatos wrote:
Chris, I'm familiar with the examples of that you cited - I've used them in an apologetics course I taught at our mid-week mtg of our lil' local assembly in 2010-2011. However, they are not usually, in my experience used in the fashion that you used them. They were employed in the logic and critical thinking course I took years ago to illustrate *not* violations of the LNC, but to illustrate the irrationality of attempting to violate or circumvent the LNC.

The LNC doesn't state that one can't come up with whimsical contradictory statements, but rather that contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

If one is willing to be irrational (not you, you have already demonstrated to me that you are quite rational and a very clear thinker to boot, as well as quite knowledgeable in areas where I am not), then one can believe such statements or to use them to attempt to circumvent the LNC.

What you've said is in fact not true sir. Knowledge may be absolute, objective [and tentative], or subjective. If knowledge of any type is absolute it is true in all times and in all places where it may be applied. Since Aristotelian logic cannot be applied to paradoxes successfully then it follows that Aristotelian logic no longer meets the requirements of absolute knowledge - i.e. true in all times and places where it may be applied. No irrationality need be entered into.


Chris, it is true. You haven't refuted my point with logic. You are not responding to my point, Chris. My point, and I apologize if I wasn't clear, was that knowledge (or truth - for knowledge must be true) can't be irrational which is what those paradoxes reveal. I have no problem with knowledge being abs, obj, or subj (though it is only true when subj if the knowledge happens to be true). Those words were never mentioned by me. So, why bring it up? Red herring? Straw-man? Nah, I don't really think that you would intentionally do either; it was probably that I was attempting to be too concise and thought that you had the background to understand the ramifications of my words.

Chris, the LNC can be applied to paradoxes, viz. to show that paradoxes are irrational. Your own original words on them show that they are - something to the effect of "if it's true, it's false, and if it's false it's true" (perhaps not your words exactly, i don't recall, but, unless i'm mistaken that is the point you were making). No one lives their lives based upon paradoxes. The do however live their lives according to the LNC. The fact that you and I are even disagreeing and attempting to communicate shows the validity of the LNC.

Your "heap" and "grain" examples suffers from an informal logical fallacy - depending upon the way one looks at the problem, it would be either the fallacy of composition or the fallacy of division. As such, it is an invalid problem for the purposes which we are speaking of.

Chris, my guess is that you probably were just misled by a poor teacher or resource which is why you remembered these examples and used them as you did.

Incorrect once again. The sorites paradox has been recognised as a true paradox for hundreds of years. I'm afraid your philosophical training has been a bit lacking in this area. Might I suggest a work such as:
http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary ... 538&sr=1-2
[/quote]

Agreed on the validity of it being a paradox. Please re-read my response relative to a paradox and how they reveal not an abrogation of the LNC, but rather the problem of irrationality. I never stated that it wasn't a paradox. Again, you seem to miss the specific point of the fallacy involved, perhaps??? b/c you don't have sufficient phil. background, or perhaps b/c I wasn't clear enough. Since you don't seem to grasp the logical fallacy involved, let me explain it more clearly and very simply:

A heap has a property of "heapness" (or a mound has a property of "moundness", but we will stick with your "heap" - i only included "mound" to help illustrate the principle involved).

It is a fallacy of division to expect a single grain (a part of the "heap") to have the same property of "heapness".

Here is a fallacy of composition (and you can view the paradox you offered fr/the other direction also):

Cells are microscopic.
A human being is composed of cells.
Therefore, a human is microscopic.

I'll leave it to you to work out the fallacy of composition fr/the perspective of the grain. I know that you can do that based upon our prev. exchanges which demonstrate you to be quiet SMRT.
soli Deo gloria
User avatar
agrammatos
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby agrammatos » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:19 pm

Chris wrote:All knowledge is transmitted by words and logic may be said to be true if it correctly models reality.


That's the problem with the paradoxes, viz. they don't model reality. Hence they can't be knowledge according to your words above and my words previously offered to you. The LNC does model reality and is therefore true.
soli Deo gloria
User avatar
agrammatos
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby Chris » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:55 pm

agrammatos wrote:Chris, it is true. You haven't refuted my point with logic. You are not responding to my point, Chris. My point, and I apologize if I wasn't clear, was that knowledge (or truth - for knowledge must be true) can't be irrational which is what those paradoxes reveal.


Paradoxes are not irrational. You seem to have some trouble comprehending philosophical concepts.

You then went on to say
I have no problem with knowledge being abs, obj, or subj (though it is only true when subj if the knowledge happens to be true). Those words were never mentioned by me. So, why bring it up?


sigh. I've already explained why. The PRINCIPLE of non-contradiction is not absolute. That is shown by its inability to handle paradoxes. That being the case it must therefore be objective but tentative knowledge.

You then went on to sling off at me by adding
Red herring? Straw-man? Nah, I don't really think that you would intentionally do either; it was probably that I was attempting to be too concise and thought that you had the background to understand the ramifications of my words.


Aggie I teach this stuff for a living. Love the subtle put down though. Very :twisted: of you.

You then go on to pontificate
Chris, the LNC can be applied to paradoxes, viz. to show that paradoxes are irrational.


Except a paradox is NOT irrational. If it were truely irrational it would be a logical fallacy. It is not. It is a paradox. To point out the blindingly obvious a paradox is NOT a logical fallacy. You have offered no support for your contention of a paradox being irrational merely repreating it ad nuseum. Sorry but your argument by assertion fallacy does not impress nor convince.

You then use a strawman fallacy and argue
Your own original words on them show that they are - something to the effect of "if it's true, it's false, and if it's false it's true" (perhaps not your words exactly, i don't recall, but, unless i'm mistaken that is the point you were making). No one lives their lives based upon paradoxes. The do however live their lives according to the LNC.


I never said that paradoxes were a philosophy of life Aggie. Strawman fallacy indeed. I was merely arguing that the aristotelian logic has limits and inability to deal with paradoxes is one such limit. Something which you seem unable to comprehend.

Perhaps I was wrong to give you a link to a philosophic dictionary. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with reading comprehension so may I suggest this:
http://www.amazon.com/Read-Well-Think-C ... 235&sr=1-4

You then came up with this bit of twitery
The fact that you and I are even disagreeing and attempting to communicate shows the validity of the LNC.


Um no it doesn't Aggie. Argument by assertion fallacy again. You seem to be implying that unless aristotelian logic is limitless communication is impossible or that finding a limit means that the whole thing is somehow invalidated. Such an assertion is quite stupid. I am arguing that aristotelian logic has limits. Doesn't mean it's worthless it means that it does not provide absolute knowledge. Because a philosophical principle has limits does NOT invalidate it anymore than a currency not being universaly accepted invalidates it.

You then go on to argue that the sorrites paradox is [or involves the use of] a fallacy. As YOU have already accepted, the Sorites is a paradox. A paradox is NOT a fallacy. I'd go on to explain why paradoxes are not fallacies but I'd be wasting my time. You seem totally unable to comprehend or unwilling to consider. I have a different idea. Why don't you go to Professor Law's site - he teaches philosophy at a uni level - and explain to him why every single philosopher for the past few thousand years has gotten it wrong and only Aggie's ego can get it right. Here's the link:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com.au/

I'm sure they'll worship the great Aggie's ego along with you. But, quite frankly I have had enough of your putdowns. See ya.
Last edited by Chris on Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
If perchance I have offended, think but this, and all is mended, that you have but slumbered here, while a vision did appear. A Midsummer Night's Dream
User avatar
Chris
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:02 am
Location: Victoria, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to The SMRT Bibliophile Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest