tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post6363287662909222781..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: GOING NUCLEARStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76922192213535215722014-02-02T14:08:01.634+00:002014-02-02T14:08:01.634+00:00A perfect analogy Steven. Interestingly you did mi...A perfect analogy Steven. Interestingly you did miss a fairly obvious layer to nuclear war, and that is that it doesn't destroy everything, only the opponent, unless the situation is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Analogously the person losing the argument doesn't nuke everything, he only nukes his opponent because he, as you say, is being leveled also. You attribute the loser's being leveled not to nukes, however, but to the superior argument of the self-identified "rational" person. However isn't claiming some monopoly on reason (and therefore truth, implicitly) a form of extremism? A form of "going nuclear" that might provoke a proverbial "arms race" and inspire the very nuclear response you're analyzing? It could be, Steven, that your arguments end in nuclear war because they begin with an arms race, a desire to destroy your opponent and not win him.<br /><br />Consider that if you're identifying yourself especially rational and true, and treating your logical framework as far more conclusive than it actually is, and not attempting to explain your frame-of-reference or understand another one but rather present yours as essential and true to reality; then might such extremism more call reality into question in the eyes of your opponent rather than enhance the importance of your view? Thus invariably leading them to question the importance of any perception altogether in response to these absolutes? Ka-boom.<br /><br />Going nuclear wins the day if it isn't mutual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7257601901279581142012-09-28T05:16:12.044+00:002012-09-28T05:16:12.044+00:00Someone linked me to this post. Love it!Someone linked me to this post. Love it!Atomsk's Sanakanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06075386707195252260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-18106599510794101922012-07-23T07:01:13.300+00:002012-07-23T07:01:13.300+00:00Cute story. Makes me want to be better. Thanks for...Cute story. Makes me want to be better. Thanks for sharing. You are wonderful.Cheapest Diablo 3 goldhttp://www.vipdiablo3.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-47484742795848879792011-09-18T04:48:05.600+00:002011-09-18T04:48:05.600+00:00Stephen,
Re: ' So, if Mike finds himself argu...Stephen,<br /><br />Re: ' So, if Mike finds himself argued into a corner, why shouldn’t he employ such a skeptical argument?'<br /><br />The pragmatic reasons you identify aside, Mike should not employ such a skeptical argument because he cannot consistently hold the conclusion of the argument. If he warrants the conclusion of the argument, i.e. that beliefs based on reason are unjustified, then he warrants the inferences and (explicit and implicit) rules of evidence employed in the argument as justifying the conclusion (i.e. he justifies his conclusion via reason). But if he warrants the conclusion, then he cannot warrant the conclusion, because the conclusion would not be justified. Thus, he asserts that the conclusion is justified and not justified.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-57100759668449722022011-09-17T21:37:38.700+00:002011-09-17T21:37:38.700+00:00The proposition that reason cannot be justified, o...The proposition that reason cannot be justified, or that a subjective form of epistemology is true, is itself a belief that requires rational justification. Or am i wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62879526649239517102011-09-17T15:20:57.133+00:002011-09-17T15:20:57.133+00:00Ah yes, Liz Miller. She has a large string of lett...Ah yes, Liz Miller. She has a large string of letters after her name; just goes to show it doesn't necessarily mean you can't get sucked into a black hole.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_MillerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37198332493398244232011-09-17T14:46:21.286+00:002011-09-17T14:46:21.286+00:00Yes, sorry about that. It's the September 1st...Yes, sorry about that. It's the September 1st episode entitled "Atheist Evangelists". The last caller (David) is well worth the listen and lasts about 10 minutes. However, if you are pressed for time, start listening at 49:17 and get ready for the nuclear move which begins at 51:09.<br /><br />Turek has debated Hitchens (a couple times, I believe) and I commend subscribing to his weekly show. It's a real hoot.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-63063142085520167772011-09-17T12:49:07.273+00:002011-09-17T12:49:07.273+00:00do you mean 3rd sept? I can only see 1st sept...do you mean 3rd sept? I can only see 1st sept...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40544500291166023112011-09-17T12:41:24.997+00:002011-09-17T12:41:24.997+00:00For anyone interested in a textbook example of the...For anyone interested in a textbook example of the "going nuclear" strategy, listen to the September 3, 2011 episode of Christian apologist Frank Turek's Cross Examined podcast (free on iTunes). To save yourself time, this happens near the end of the show as Turek is in the process of getting owned by an atheist caller.<br /><br />The strategy is also employed expertly by Christian philosopher Matt Flannagan on the M & M blog.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66041583037128854122011-09-17T12:35:29.361+00:002011-09-17T12:35:29.361+00:00Er, no I meant Bod and am referring to a different...Er, no I meant Bod and am referring to a different contributor, sorry!Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73795077811801512212011-09-17T12:26:51.517+00:002011-09-17T12:26:51.517+00:00Sorry not "bod" but "Dogma".Sorry not "bod" but "Dogma".Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28937597572680962222011-09-17T12:21:25.807+00:002011-09-17T12:21:25.807+00:00Yes, I note that comment comes from "Bod"...Yes, I note that comment comes from "Bod" who sounds surprisingly like one Dr Liz Miller (of the Mind, Body, Spirit, Centre") who wrote this on the basis of reading that NS review:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1616144114/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#RJK42JR5PJE5J<br /><br />Mind, Body, Spirit page:<br /><br />http://mindbodyspiritcentre.org/dr-liz-miller/Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-34766220956535922922011-09-17T11:48:18.240+00:002011-09-17T11:48:18.240+00:00I find some of the comments left in response to th...I find some of the comments left in response to the interviews/reviews fascinating and depressing in equal measure. For example, here's one from the New Scientist interview:<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, it is stated that "there probably are questions that science cannot answer." This is utterly ignorant of the fact that we, the scientists, keep changing models that we use to represent reality. The Earth was flat, then it was round. It was in the center of the universe, surrounded with crystal spheres moving planets around it - now it is orbiting around the Sun. We were curing people by bloodletting, now we cure them by feeding them purified chemical compounds.</i><br /><br />This makes it sound as though the replacement models where substituted arbitrarily, and not as the result of an increase in knowledge (no ships fell off the edge of the earth, so perhaps it wasn't flat after all?).<br /><br />And this reviewer asserted that "Only a non-scientist can show this level of misunderstanding of how science works in real life."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com