Okay folks. I'm back - I wanted to wait until the discussion/argument was completed between me and my acquaintance, but alas, it's still going - but I think we're getting much closer to the end of the argument.
I must give thanks to you all, for providing me with ammunition to destroy my anti-objectivist acquaintance of doom - and a special thanks to Joe, Ed and Jody - great points there. [Joe + Ed = Jody? Hey!]
At first, the argument was firm, clear and crisp.. but then somewhere after that, I sort of lost my composure - and the whole discussion was a little "off" for a while, and both him and I were getting confused at each other's contentions, spiraling down a path of miscommunication, misinterpretation and misunderstandings. So I finally decided to pull back and gather his core contentions, and see if I understood him correctly. I made a list of his key points, presented them to him and asked him if they were true. Not surprisingly, it took him a long, long, long time for him to eat his own words. Yet, surprisingly, he managed to swallow all of them - to my amazement. I have now verified the list, and here it is:
1.) Empirical evidence is the sole source of knowledge.
2.) Empirical basis is the sole determinant in judging the correctness of statements.
3.)Logic "as a pretender to truth" is exclusively concerned with structure of statements and not their references to reality, nor any references to reality.
From what I've gathered, by the phrase "pretender to truth", he is saying "logic is superficial thing - it's just about non-contradicting statements, so what?" Or something along those lines.
And, last, but not least:
4.) Contradictions exist Objectively.
The argument went something like this:
Me: Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself.
Him: Not so. Writes on a piece of paper: "A is true and A is false" That's a contradiction that you should be able to plainly see right there, on the paper. Plainly, that statement is a contradiction; plainly, that statement exists. Whether it is true or not is another issue, and can only be determined by the particular references to reality of "A" and "not A".
Then he continues: "If you say that reality is consistent with itself, I would agree with that. However, contradiction, in logic, refers to statements about reality, not to reality itself."
What he means by "consistent", to be exact, not really sure. I am currently trying to explain to him that:
Objective: Independent of man’s interpretations and evaluations.
Subjective: Dependent/Contingent upon man’s interpretations and evaluations.
Oh, and Jody, I asked him to restate his argument in a way that totally seperates reason from experience.
In response to my challenge, he stated: "Yeah right."
Then he looked up the definition of reason in dictionary.com,
reason:
v. rea•soned, rea•son•ing, rea•sons
v. intr.
To use the faculty of reason; think logically.
To talk or argue logically and persuasively.
Obsolete. To engage in conversation or discussion.
And stated, thereafter: "So, whether an argument is reasonable, is whether the argument is logical."
I reinformed him of the inter-changeability of the two words - logic and reason - as demonstrated by Ed Thompson earlier. So I rechallenged, once more.
He said: "Yeah right" I used a double-positive to create a negative, which logically is incorrect. This is a counter-example to the logician's worldview; that refutes the logician's worldview.
I told him I fail to see how how this is an example of stating an argument in a way that uses ONLY experience divorced from reason. It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. How he doesn't see this, is beyond me.
Well, and so it goes.
(Edited by Warren Chase Anspaugh on 10/26, 2:35pm)
|
