[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:14:56 -0500
Message-id: <20070810171456.GE9031@xxxxxxxx>
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:25:02PM -0700, Duane Nickull wrote:
> > ...
> >>>> DN: "The person has lost their ability to think critically" =
> >>>> someone's opinion, not fact.
> >>> 
> >>> CM: Nonsense.  Anyone who is no longer willing or able to consider
> >>> that a given contingent belief -- especially a belief about gods
> >>> and what they expect of us -- might be false and hence ought not
> >>> to be believed has by definition ceased to think critically.
> >>> Pat's lunch companion was obviously such a person.  It is a fact
> >>> therefore that the person had, at least with regard to his beliefs
> >>> about his obligation to kill Rushdie, lost or given up his ability
> >>> to think critically.
> >> 
> >> DN: I disagree. 
> > 
> > CM: I frankly do not see how that is possible unless you believe
> > that one can be a critical thinker and yet be unwilling/unable to
> > consider that one's beliefs about gods and what they expect of us
> > might well be false.  In which case you are not using the words
> > "critical thinking" the way the rest of us do.
> DN: Still story.  You are making the following assumption:
> "Pat's (friend?) did not consider whether or not his belief about gods
> and what they expect of us might well be false"
> We do not know either of this to be factual. The only way is probably to ask
> him.  Labeling that un-critical thinking without knowledge of the facts
> surrounding his thinking process is (forgive me) not critical thinking in
> itself.    (01)

To the contrary, we have ample facts to warrant the judgment that Pat's
lunch partner is irrational (with respect to his belief about what his
god expected of him):    (02)

1. He believes he is obligated to kill Rushdie and would in fact do so
if presented the opportunity.    (03)

2. Either he is certain about his obligation to kill Rushdie or he is
not.    (04)

3. If he is certain, then he is irrational, as it is impossible to have
certain knowledge about what invisible beings expect of us.    (05)

4. If he is not certain, then he is irrational, as he willing to commit
murder on the basis of a belief (namely, that he is obligated to kill
Rushdie) that he does not know with any certainty to be true.    (06)

Either way, Pat's lunch partner is irrational.    (07)

No more from me on this.  The number of matters on which we disagree or
on which I think you are confused is simply multiplying out of hand.
(Not to mention the fact that we are now waaay off topic.)    (08)

-chris    (09)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (010)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>