Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _Philo Sofee »

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2 ... n-god.html

I rather think this guy's point is profound! I like how he uses a personal experience and then goes for the jugular of the apologists. A nifty little 2 minute read on my take.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

I'll admit that the blog post didn't blow my dress up, but I thought there was something interesting:

I love philosophy. It's a wonderful tool to learn how to think better. It helps us check ideas against other ideas and against what we know about reality. But in order to gain that knowledge about reality, we turn to the hard sciences. Philosophy has never and will never demonstrate the existence of anything. Such a demonstration takes more than arguments or logical proofs. It takes observation and experimentation. Such things are not the realm of philosophy.


The bolded portion struck me as kind of truncated; it reads like one of the pep talks one has to give a to an auditorium of students in a general level critical thinking course. I have a grander conception of meta-philosophy than most, but this kind of reduction strikes me as even more sparse than any kind of meta-philosophy I'm aware of.

The italic portion is revealing. The process of demonstration has four necessary conditions; (I) Argumentation, (II) Logic, (III) Observation, and (IV) Experimentation. Jointly, they conditions are sufficient for demonstrating existence of something. I think this is very vulnerable to being undermined by an apologist.

But if we want something more analogous, all we have to do is turn on any current “science” channel. There are no shortage of ghost hunters and paranormal investigators out looking for spooks and spirits. Do they do this by sitting around and thinking up nice sounding arguments? Of course not. They set up cameras and audio equipment and spectral telemetry recorders. And while all they're really good for is a laugh or jump scare, at least they understand the game and try to play by the rules.

That's more than I can say for any apologist I've ever read.


Not sure what to make of this just yet. The language of "game" and "rules" is an interesting given what the author said about the task of philosophy.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _Gadianton »

since when has philosphy been such a big part of Mormon apologetics? As Hugh Nibley affirmed (from a farmer fed up at an ancient church council): it's easier to make a stone talk than a philosopher to shut up.

Mormon apologetics is almost entirely empirical. Mormonism condemns philosophy outright.

So the Limited Geography Theory and the 82 parallels to Nahom are so much better than The Critique of Pure Reason?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

Gadianton wrote:since when has philosphy been such a big part of Mormon apologetics?


When they think they can get away with it. I liken it to a panicked person grabbing a blunt object and swinging it around wildly.

Gadianton wrote:Mormon apologetics is almost entirely empirical. Mormonism condemns philosophy outright.


I like to think day to day Mormonism as it is practiced is some kind of vulgar naïve realism. Everything is exactly as it presents itself and is simply taken in. Every Mopologist knows on a sub-conscious level that the common faith of their church is pretty vapid and so they go to war with themselves.

Take Kevin Christensen as an example. The dude has been using Thomas Kuhn since 1995. He has been talking about "paradigms" for almost 20damn years.

I would liken it to some kind of habit or ritual one does to cope with anxiety, like some kind of mantra an addict would recite when cravings appear.
_Symmachus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _Symmachus »

I once had a brief exchange with Ralph Hancock in the comments section of Sin et Con, wherein I asked him how he could be a consistent Straussian, given his belief in a literalist Mormonism. It seemed to me that Mormonism was a kind of historicist religion, with its contingent principles accessed through revelation in changing circumstances, its emphasis on development of the subject from intellegence-matter to god. Moreoever, the truth of Mormonism was contingent on historical events, so that if the events didn't happen (according to the literalist view), then whatever principles were uniquely Mormon would vanish. They were not absolute, since they depended on whether Joseph really did meet an angel who led him to a gold book buried in his backyard.

Peterson chimed in first, to tell me that I was an idiot basically (he must be a great teacher), but Hancock to his credit at least admitted that he was an outlier among the Straussians for his religious beliefs, and said something to the effect that they were interesting questions but misguided in ways he didn't specify, and moved on.

Wouldn't you say the dominant strand in apologetics (and literalist Mormonism generally) is this kind of historical empiricist thinking, Stak? Some of Gad's posts in the past have referenced a few these Mormon philosophers who attempt to put what expertise they have in the service of the larger apologetic project. If I remember rightly, Gad finds the appeals to Kuhn, Peter Novick, and Hayden White to be particularly ironic, since they seem to undermine the whole project even while ostensibly supporting it by attacking critics, trapped as they are in a historicist mindset and a naïve faith in objectivity (wink, wink).

What seems to me be the real place where philosophy has interacted with Mormonism is this neo-apologetic stuff (Adam Miller and so on), although I wonder how much of it is tied into the tradition of Western philosophy. I'd love get your thoughts on Adam Miller and others in that bunch.

Thanks, by the way, for elaborating on the point about nihilism and Nietzche on the other thread.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _Gadianton »

online, no doubt that's true. in fact, lately, it's about the only thing apologetics does from certain quarters is question the possibility that we can know anything therefore science is false and church is true.

I guess I mean historically, when Mopologetics was still alive.

a few submissions to FARMS but it's almost all "ghost hunter" type stuff.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

Symmachus wrote:I once had a brief exchange with Ralph Hancock in the comments section of Sin et Con, wherein I asked him how he could be a consistent Straussian, given his belief in a literalist Mormonism. It seemed to me that Mormonism was a kind of historicist religion, with its contingent principles accessed through revelation in changing circumstances, its emphasis on development of the subject from intellegence-matter to god. Moreoever, the truth of Mormonism was contingent on historical events, so that if the events didn't happen (according to the literalist view), then whatever principles were uniquely Mormon would vanish. They were not absolute, since they depended on whether Joseph really did meet an angel who led him to a gold book buried in his backyard.

Peterson chimed in first, to tell me that I was an idiot basically (he must be a great teacher), but Hancock to his credit at least admitted that he was an outlier among the Straussians for his religious beliefs, and said something to the effect that they were interesting questions but misguided in ways he didn't specify, and moved on.

lol I'd eat my copy of 'Spinoza's Critique of Religion' if a Mormon squared his religion with Strauss. Alas, my posting privileges at DCP's blog have been revoked.

Image

Symmachus wrote:Wouldn't you say the dominant strand in apologetics (and literalist Mormonism generally) is this kind of historical empiricist thinking, Stak?

Sure, but empiricism is really only giving sense perception priority when it comes to knowledge. Trying to generate data intentionally through contrived tests with instruments in a specific environment really only covers a fraction of what could be considered empirical. Is the latter representative of Mormonism in general? I guess one could make a case the folk magic stuff might qualify as the latter, but I don't think religious experiences would.

To be honest I'd reckon Mormonism took on her empiricism through contact with traditional forms of American Christianity, so the kind of empiricism embodied by Thomas Reid and all the other "common sense" Scots reacting to Hume. What I've read from Talmage and B.H. Roberts gives me that impression anyways.

Symmachus wrote:What seems to me be the real place where philosophy has interacted with Mormonism is this neo-apologetic stuff (Adam Miller and so on), although I wonder how much of it is tied into the tradition of Western philosophy. I'd love get your thoughts on Adam Miller and others in that bunch.

Only seen the stuff on social media, never really gave Adam Miller a look.
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _Philo Sofee »

You, of all people, got banned at Sic et Non Stak? This is yet more demonstration that Peterson wants praise for his insights, not excellenet critiques designed to strengthen his arguments, even though that strengthening would weaken his religious views. Ah for the glory of self serving bias!
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

Philo Sofee wrote:You, of all people, got banned at Sic et Non Stak? This is yet more demonstration that Peterson wants praise for his insights, not excellenet critiques designed to strengthen his arguments, even though that strengthening would weaken his religious views. Ah for the glory of self serving bias!


the guy is just an @$$ with a lot of problems in life. I bet a lot of Mormons that know him in person don't like him.
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Where Philosophy Fails and Science Prevails

Post by _Philo Sofee »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:You, of all people, got banned at Sic et Non Stak? This is yet more demonstration that Peterson wants praise for his insights, not excellenet critiques designed to strengthen his arguments, even though that strengthening would weaken his religious views. Ah for the glory of self serving bias!


the guy is just an @$$ with a lot of problems in life. I bet a lot of Mormons that know him in person don't like him.


Oh he's wonderfully pleasant actually. I've had dinner with him, talked lots with him as an apologist, did interviews with him. He is funny actually. It is his presentation that mars him in my opinion. His bias is so clever and he is so clever he cannot see through it or realize he has it. I think he is genuinely sincere in his belief. His own intelligence actually prevents him from ever arriving at any kind of proper probability concerning his own religious/historical researches, and therefore I have to be very, very careful about reading him and making sure I do some serious checking on things. He apparently thinks that it is more important to be right than to do valid research. It appears to me that anything he finds that makes Mormonism look good is right and it's o.k. to only present those things that make Mormonism look good while ignoring more consistent and higher quality arguments, logic, and thinking that show Mormonism is faulty. He lacks balance.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Post Reply