Sunday School

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Ending the U.S. Department of Education: What it would mean and why Trump and Project 2025 want it but Trump’s cover-up of it is failing. Just take a look at Oklahoma to see what could happen as politicians step up attacks on the teaching of scientific theories in US schools.

Britain should be careful in wording any ‘Religion-phobia’ definitions into law. Good, because I find the faux persecution complex of the religious highly amusing.

Blasphemy accusations incite violence, deepening the crisis for Pakistan’s vulnerable minorities while the Taliban further erodes the rights of women.

World of Woo: Ozone therapy.

Environment:  Most policies to combat Climate Change do not work.

The use of ancient Greek rhetorical tricks at the DNC.

The ‘Streisand Effect’ —when censorship fails.

‘Wait, what’s a pew, Mom?’

Scientific consensus needs dissent.

Creating realistic and believable fake photos is now trivial to do. We are not prepared for this.

Long Reads: A life shattered by Pseudoscience. How Cancel Culture and Identity Politics have corrupted Science. Are our worldviews structured by language? Armed conflict is stressing the bones of the global economy. Who is afraid of Russia losing its “special military operation”?

Sunday Book Club:  The Edge of Knowledge – Lawrence Krauss. (See also last video below).

Some photographs taken last week.

While you are waiting for the kettle to boil……

Coffee Break Videos: How Project 2025 targets Atheists.  What happens when countries lose Religion?  Can Quantum Physics explain Consciousness after all? Interview with Lawrence Krauss by Sabine Hossenfelder about The Edge of Knowledge.

• This topic was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer.
• This topic was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Have a great week everyone! Did all y’all enjoy the game in Dublin 🙂

Reason is non-negotiable. Try to argue against it, or to exclude it from some realm of knowledge, and you’ve already lost the argument, because you’re using reason to make your case. And no, this isn’t having “faith” in reason (in the same way that some people have faith in miracles), because we don’t “believe” in reason; we use reason.

–Steven Pinker (Does the empirical nature of science contradict the revelatory nature of faith?)

[StregaModerator]

Thanks Reg!

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

you’re using reason to make your case

I think reason is the problem half the time.  There is something in propositional logic, that states that a set of propositions can have internal validity – they are logical – they follow reason – without being true overall.

The real issue is facts.  People can reason or rationalise any position, gymnastically, but if they bend or ignore facts, that’s how they can do it.

[_Robert_Participant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

you’re using reason to make your case

I think reason is the problem half the time. There is something in propositional logic, that states that a set of propositions can have internal validity – they are logical – they follow reason – without being true overall. The real issue is facts. People can reason or rationalise any position, gymnastically, but if they bend or ignore facts, that’s how they can do it.

Is it reasonable to bend or ignore facts?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Is it reasonable to bend or ignore facts?

Do Republicans ever tell the truth these days?

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I have a tattoo of Urizen (You-Reason) on a shoulder blade.

From Chatgpt:

Urizen is a character created by the English poet and artist William Blake, who appears prominently in his series of prophetic books, particularly “The Book of Urizen” (1794). Blake’s Urizen is a complex figure representing law, reason, and order, but also the limitations and tyranny associated with these concepts when they are taken to extremes. Here’s a brief overview of Urizen and his relationship with reason:

### Urizen in Blake’s Mythology:
1. **Symbol of Reason and Law**: Urizen embodies the principle of reason in Blake’s mythology. He represents logic, rationality, and the imposition of laws and rules. However, Blake sees reason not as a liberating force, but as one that can become tyrannical when it is disconnected from imagination, creativity, and spirituality.

2. **The Negative Aspect of Reason**: For Blake, reason alone, without the balance of imagination (often represented by the character Los in his works), leads to a rigid, mechanistic worldview. Urizen’s reason is not the reason of enlightenment but a constraining, authoritarian force that suppresses human creativity and the divine spark within humanity.

3. **Creation and Fall**: In “The Book of Urizen,” Urizen is depicted as a creator figure who brings about the material world through his strict laws and rational principles. However, this act of creation is also a fall, a descent from a state of spiritual unity into division, fragmentation, and suffering. Urizen’s creation of the physical universe is an act of separation from the divine, leading to a world bound by necessity and devoid of spiritual freedom.

4. **Urizen’s Tyranny**: As the embodiment of reason, Urizen becomes a tyrant who imposes his laws on the world, stifling the imagination and spiritual potential of human beings. Blake critiques the overemphasis on reason and the neglect of other aspects of the human experience, such as emotion, intuition, and the creative imagination.

### Use of Reason:
Blake’s treatment of Urizen reflects his broader critique of the Enlightenment’s focus on reason as the supreme guiding principle. Blake was deeply suspicious of a worldview that prioritized rationality over the imaginative and spiritual dimensions of life. In his view, reason, when untempered by imagination, leads to a dehumanizing and oppressive existence.

– **Balance Between Reason and Imagination**: Blake did not reject reason entirely but advocated for a balance between reason and imagination. He saw the two as complementary forces that, when harmonized, could lead to true wisdom and spiritual enlightenment. However, when reason is exalted above all else, as in the figure of Urizen, it results in alienation and tyranny.

In summary, Urizen in Blake’s mythology represents the dangers of an unbalanced reliance on reason. While reason is necessary, it must be integrated with imagination and spirituality to avoid becoming a destructive force.

Tattoo is a variation of this:

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

I think reason is the problem half the time.  There is something in propositional logic, that states that a set of propositions can have internal validity – they are logical – they follow reason – without being true overall.

C.S. Peirce brilliantly realized that people don’t reason with propositional deduction or even with induction most of the time  We use a form of reasoning he called abduction. Abduction might be described as educated guessing. It offers no guarantee of truth and the result is more like a reasonable hypothesis than a truth.

An example…

If I come home and my cat fails to greet me and cannot be seen anywhere. If she has been dying of a serious illness, I might think the most likely explanation is that she is in a hiding place unconscious or in the last throes or may even have died.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

– **Balance Between Reason and Imagination**: Blake did not reject reason entirely but advocated for a balance between reason and imagination. He saw the two as complementary forces

I think it’s possible to reason creatively: to come up with new ideas.

Blake sees reason not as a liberating force, but as one that can become tyrannical when it is disconnected from imagination, creativity, and spirituality.

I think it’s sophistry when it’s disconnected from facts, or facts are hidden.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

C.S. Peirce brilliantly realized that people don’t reason with propositional deduction or even with induction most of the time

Yes, but something can be logical without being true.  A clever speaker uses sophistry and emotion to sway their credulous audience.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Simon

No. True premises used in an argument with a valid form must imply a true conclusion. If it doesn’t, there is a disturbance in the force.

If you disagree, provide an example.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

True premises used in an argument with a valid form must imply a true conclusion.

This is what I’m saying.  Sometimes the premises given aren’t true, but a logically-formed argument can be made out of them.

E.g.  Donald Trump – “All migrants are rapists, criminals or mental patients.”  “X is a migrant.”  Conclusion:  “X is a rapist, a criminal or a mental patient.”

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

True premises used in an argument with a valid form must imply a true conclusion.

This is what I’m saying. Sometimes the premises given aren’t true, but a logically-formed argument can be made out of them. E.g. Donald Trump – “All migrants are rapists, criminals or mental patients.” “X is a migrant.” Conclusion: “X is a rapist, a criminal or a mental patient.”

Then your point suffers from being simply obvious. Duh.

[_Robert_Participant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

True premises used in an argument with a valid form must imply a true conclusion.

This is what I’m saying. Sometimes the premises given aren’t true, but a logically-formed argument can be made out of them. E.g. Donald Trump – “All migrants are rapists, criminals or mental patients.” “X is a migrant.” Conclusion: “X is a rapist, a criminal or a mental patient.”

Actually, even the logical construction of the premise is incorrect because of the use of ‘OR’. This implies that a migrant can’t be a mental patient AND a criminal AND a rapist. This first statement needs to be proven true before any rational inferences may be made about it.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Actually, even the logical construction of the premise is incorrect because of the use of ‘OR’. This implies that a migrant can’t be a mental patient AND a criminal AND a rapist. This first statement needs to be proven true before any rational inferences may be made about it.

“Or” is the oddball logical operator because it comes in inclusive and exclusive forms. “If you are born in the U.S. or are a naturalized citizen, you can vote” (inclusive) “You’re with us or you’re against us.” (exclusive)

 

[Author]

Posts