Saturday, June 25, 2011

Forgotten Details of a Lost Universal

An objection I heard recently is that a good argument must contain premises that are more probable than their negations. But if one has two premises that are each 51% probable, then the conclusion can have only a 25.5% probability of being true.

It depends on whether the -probabilities- (technically, the underlying random variables) of the premises are in any way dependent on each other. Only if their probabilities are independent of each other would that calculation be correct.

If valid, the objection's argument would work against any two probability-independent premises including its own.

But the more basic question is how could one know the probabilities of -any- basic philosophical premise in the first place. What about the probabilities of the premises that imply the truth of that probability statement itself or the premises underlying any claims about the relation between a way of construing such probability and the existence of God.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

The Guilty Conscience of Irrationalism

Disparaging the intellect always involves trying to justify the disparagement using an intellectual argument.

--Redacted from Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, Nutley NJ: Craig Press, page 71.

Feser on Intentionality

Many scientists think their scientific competence excuses them from having to do their homework in philosophy before commenting on the subject.

--Redacted from Edward Feser, "Coyne on Intentionality"



http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/coyne-on-intentionality.html#more

Saturday, June 04, 2011

I know the conditions, I know them not,...

Kant set out to discover the pre-conditions of experience while denying that those pre-conditions themselves are objects of our experience.

--redacted from Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, Nutley NJ: Craig Press, pages 61-62.

Thursday, June 02, 2011

The Atheist of Oz

Methodological gods are necessarily crypto-theistic, and unquestioned assumptions of any kind are always the -real- gods getting a pass. But implicit self-exemption is so much fun! At least, as long as the Christians don't get wise to the meta-theoretic con. Fortunately for atheism, they rarely do.