Avoiding Logical Fallacies

[JDaniel]

I think both claims are perfectly untenable; I’d be a fool to assert either, based on the evidence available to us. “Something can come from nothing” is just as rationalist as “something cannot come from nothing”, by the way, in that they both obtain totally free of any real world information or experience. It’s just a different intuition one draws upon vs. the other.

In any case, both claims could not be more ‘naked’ as assertions, and supposing one is more warranted over another, even a little bit is to compound the problem with more naked assertions.

TS: there’s a tad bit more covering supplied by my side’s clothing. You’re guy is just bald-faced naked! But, I’ll shake your hand a call it a draw - for now.

Yes, and I’ve consistently said that’s as bogus as claiming “something cannot come from nothing”. They are equally maximally unwarranted. It’s maximally unknown. Note that just that, though, brings proofs like those of Aquinas that depend on “something cannot come from nothing” crumbling down. They cannot survive with that discarded into the “unknown” pile, where it belongs.

St. Thomas’ five proofs do not utilize the “something from nothing” premise. He uses the true premise that there’s no such thing as an actual infinity, in the mathematical or physical orders.

I don’t think it’s a matter of “yet”. Given our epistemic limitations of being “in this universe”, and the perfect consistency of this universe in a complete absence of anything “coming to be”, ever, anywhere, we shan’t expect to ever make headway on that area. Hawking and Susskind’s model is an interesting bit of theoretical extrapolation, and it’s substantively superior to religious intuition in that it at least is performative and coherent in this universe, but at the end of the day, it’s only extrapolation. It will ever remain a perfect unknown to us, so far as we can see.

I completely disagree.

Now, coming-to-be is not the same as creation. Coming-to-be is in the order of causation. It is primary matter becoming infused with form, by an efficient cause for a purpose, or final cause. For creation, none of this is present. Creation is merely analogous to coming-to-be.

A fetus comes to be. It starts as two different cells with slightly differing DNA strands. When the two combine, something essentially new transpires. Everyone knows this. New cells occur not by rearrangement, but by addition and augmentation of the earlier cells, and these become tissue, not just mere cells. And, the process continues, shaping and forming new cells. The prior cellular materials are pulled from many sources, not merely from original cells, by mitosis and cytokenesis. Food conversion: carbohydrate metabolism and protein metabolism.

It’s much more complex than simply moving cells and matter around. There are rules, rules that aren’t normally broken, but, can be, which causes anomalies and aberrations. But, were it not for these rules - which, by the way, seem to be identical in all cases of human generation - or, we’d give birth to trees and rats and houses.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

"

inductive fallacy - (Hasty Generalization)
Fallacy committed when one comes to a quick conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.
Examples:
“My town is mostly republican. Three of the five houses on my street have republican signs in them.”
“I did a survey in my town by going to three different Dentists and they all said Crest was the best toothpaste to use so Crest must be the best.”

Thank you for all these fallacies. The one I am most interested in is the inductive fallacy. Is this a misuse of inductive reasoning used in some natural science research?

What I am trying to get into proper words is that over-extending an conclusion is key when the “universal” is beyond the basic reasonable evidence. For example. The samples of evidence may be low for legitimate reasons. Nonetheless, the “universal” may not be totally accurate because the unexamined factors could have greater influence than the original pieces of evidence.

Is the fallacy the same as going from a particular to an universal? If this is the induction method, then how does one prevent abuse?

I’m trying to understand methods in some natural science human population research in the Back Fence Forum. I think the induction fallacy is in place, but I’m not sure how to word it. This is the thread I am working on. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

Blessings,
granny

The search for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you for all these fallacies. The one I am most interested in is the inductive fallacy. Is this a misuse of inductive reasoning used in some natural science research?

What I am trying to get into proper words is that over-extending an conclusion is key when the “universal” is beyond the basic reasonable evidence. For example. The samples of evidence may be low for legitimate reasons. Nonetheless, the “universal” may not be totally accurate because the unexamined factors could have greater influence than the original pieces of evidence.

Is the fallacy the same as going from a particular to an universal? If this is the induction method, then how does one prevent abuse?

I’m trying to understand methods in some natural science human population research in the Back Fence Forum. I think the induction fallacy is in place, but I’m not sure how to word it. This is the thread I am working on. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

Blessings,
granny

The search for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

A particular post?

jd

 

[grannymh]

A particular post?

jd

From post one. “The intention is to show the different ways of arriving at theories regarding the origin of today’s human person. Think in terms of – **How **does one arrive at their theories?”

I have been looking for someone who understands how the induction method is applied so that I can p(name removed by moderator)oint the fallacy. It is not the science itself which is in question. It is the conclusion that I question. To be more accurate, it is the conclusion of the popular media which I question.

Blessings,
granny

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

 

[The_Exodus]

Yes, and I’ve consistently said that’s as bogus as claiming “something cannot come from nothing”. They are equally maximally unwarranted. It’s maximally unknown. Note that just that, though, brings proofs like those of Aquinas that depend on “something cannot come from nothing” crumbling down. They cannot survive with that discarded into the “unknown” pile, where it belongs.

Two errors here: a) confusing metaphysical nothingness with some sort of vague imagintative vacuous blackness, which physicists call "nothing; and b) implying that St. Thomas’s proofs are a priori.

Metaphysical nothingness cannot have properties, since it is a complete negation of being. It cannot be sensed in any way. Therefore, if you saw some sort of black vacuum “giving rise” to particles, this would not be metaphysical nothingness, since metaphysical nothingness cannot be seen. So, the claim “something cannot come from [metaphysical] nothingness” certainly follows when the term is understood. It really just amounts to the law of contradiction stating - A cannot be not-A; metaphysical nothingness is not-existing; therefore, MN cannot be existing. It is not, then, a naked claim, but a truth that stems from the law of contradiction applied in the philosophy of ontology.

Also, Aquinas’s proofs are not a priori, and he does not try to prove a thing to be true by showing it’s opposite to be impossible. This is the very reason his proofs are so strong. They are *empirically *driven. The only thing Aquinas assumes is that we can know reality. His first proof, for example, is purely testable by any person: a thing changes by some prior agent working on it. Take a piece of wool and set it on fire and you will see that the wool is on fire because the fire ignited it. As simple as this sounds, it is an (name removed by moderator)enetrable example. It does not beg the question, it is reproducible, it doesn’t proof itself positively by disproving another thing negatively. It is simply fallacious to claim that “we simply have never witnessed something coming to be” in light of this very proof, which shows “cotton-on-fire” coming to be right before your eyes. The burden of proof falls heavily on you to show us why we should deny what is a clear, testable, and rational a posteriori proof. Things come to be all the time, and it can be verifiably proven by our sense perception. To claim the contrary you must ultimately, like Kant, deny our sense perception accurately portrays the world around us.

You are wanting some sort of evidence of something “popping into being” out of nothing or creation ex nihilo, or else you reject that it can be known that a thing can “come to be.” This leads to the conflation of thinking that Aquinas’s proofs are trying to show that something can come from metaphysical nothing/creation ex nihilo. Aquinas himself would admit, however, that “it is held by faith alone that the world has not always existed.” Read ST I I Q. around 47 I believe.

(Ironically, on one hand you claim there is no sufficient reason for thinking either way that something can or can not come from “nothing”, and on the other hand hold that things can have no cause for their being the way they are, according to x modern physical theory. But, since you claim to support the latter with evidence/observation, you would not really be talking about metaphysical nothingness, since, as stated above, it cannot be sensed, observed, or changed. You need to sort out the difference here between your usage of the word “nothing.” No one here has ever tried to show something coming to be from metaphysical nothingness.)

 

[Touchstone]

TS: there’s a tad bit more covering supplied by my side’s clothing. You’re guy is just bald-faced naked! But, I’ll shake your hand a call it a draw - for now.

Heh. OK, I’m fine with that. But note that “your guy” really is your guy. I disavow both of these fools.

St. Thomas’ five proofs do not utilize the “something from nothing” premise. He uses the true premise that there’s no such thing as an actual infinity, in the mathematical or physical orders.

Well, he should have had lunch with Hilbert or Cantor, but that’s another subject.

If you read Aquinas’ Third Way (the Cosmological Argument), you will see he explicitly invokes “ex nihilo, nihil fit” (see here, for example text of the Five Ways):

Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd.

I completely disagree.

Now, coming-to-be is not the same as creation. Coming-to-be is in the order of causation. It is primary matter becoming infused with form, by an efficient cause for a purpose, or final cause. For creation, none of this is present. Creation is merely analogous to coming-to-be.

Hmmm. If it’s analogous, then creation also begins with “primary matter”. This is the point of the ex nihilo idea, though, to reject exactly the analogy you offer here. If creating the universe were “infusing primary matter with form”, it would be analogous, but at odds with the ex nihilo concept.

A fetus comes to be. It starts as two different cells with slightly differing DNA strands. When the two combine, something essentially new transpires. Everyone knows this. New cells occur not by rearrangement, but by addition and augmentation of the earlier cells, and these become tissue, not just mere cells.

It is rearrangement, though, as any “addition” happening to the cells comes at the precise cost of “subtraction” somehwere else – moving matter and energy in zero-sum ways from one configuration to another. Nothing new is fundamentally created. All the atoms of the cells came from somewhere else, were just being used in some not-the-new-cell way, previously.

And, the process continues, shaping and forming new cells. The prior cellular materials are pulled from many sources, not merely from original cells, by mitosis and cytokenesis. Food conversion: carbohydrate metabolism and protein metabolism.

Yeah, that’s just moving the same matter and energy around that’s been here since the beginning, though. Nothing is created in the fundamental sense. These are just appearances and patterns of configuration, fundamentally. That’s cool enough, though – there’s a lot to be said for exotic configurations of matter an energy. Being such a thing myself, I can appreciate the significance of that. But I’m just made of stardust like you, and like everything everywhere is, and always has been.

It’s much more complex than simply moving cells and matter around. There are rules, rules that aren’t normally broken, but, can be, which causes anomalies and aberrations. But, were it not for these rules - which, by the way, seem to be identical in all cases of human generation - or, we’d give birth to trees and rats and houses.

God bless,
jd

Yes, but rules for configuration don’t create anything in a fundamental sense. It’s just “rule based configuration”. Being the product of said rules, myself, I can easily appreciate the difference between a rule for producing “human” vs. “cat”. But it is just rules working on conserved matter and energy, precisely the same energy and matter that has been around since the beginning. There is nothing new under the sun, here.

-TS

 

[mcteague]

On the improbable chance that anyone not already familiar with Aristotle, Kant, or logic theory in general is reading this thread, I thought I should make some quick points.
In addition to learning to recognize fallacies in both your own and other peoples arguments look up articles on argumentation. In particular search for articles and tutorials on argument diagraming. It is not something you want to do all the time, but learning to do diagraming is a good way to learn how arguments work. Except for philosophy class you will probably never see an argument presented as a syllogism. So you want to learn how to break things down to their component parts.

It has been said, but deserves repeating. Arguments can be logical, but still be incorrect. You want to be careful about being intimidated by being accused of fallacy. Many people will toss that out without really supporting the claim. As if it were self evident. And they could be wrong.
Even if your argument is logically flawed, it does not mean you necessarily have to abandon it, or change your conclusion. Sometimes you do, but often you can construct more valid and persuassive arguments. Of course you shouldn’t be afraid to admit when your wrong either.
Often issues about about argument validity come down to definitional differences. Clarifying terminology can avoid some problems. People also often make the mistake of presenting arguments as though they were deductive when they are not. The vast majority of arguments you will make or hear are inductive. If you don’t know the difference look it up.
Again though, don’t be intimidated by a charge of fallacy. The criticism might be wrong, and the other side might be using charge to support their own fallacial position.
It is very easy to be intimidated by philosophical terms you are not familiar with. Just as it is easy to be intimidated here by things written in Latin. But neither is proof that you are wrong.
Learning to recognize logical fallacies and to use argument structures correctly will lead to better thinking, and allow you to be more persuasive.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

grannymh

I have been looking for someone who understands how the induction method is applied so that I can p(name removed by moderator)oint the fallacy. It is not the science itself which is in question. It is the conclusion that I question. To be more accurate, it is the conclusion of the popular media which I question.

And you are right to do so. Many of the so-called objective studies begin with the desire of the researchers to prove a pre-ordained conclusion. Samples can be subtly skewered to reach one conclusion rather than another. As Mark Twain is reported to have said:

“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

A statistical study might report that there are few atheists in prison compared to theists. This figure is arrived at, however, by the declaration of prisoners’ religious preference upon entering prison. Few atheists would see any benefit in declaring themselves atheists. How would this help with the parole board? Many of the prisoners who do declare themselves to be of a particular religious denomination (most likely the one they were born in) do not indicate on the fact sheet whether they were practicing any religion at the time of their criminal activity. Anybody in the prison ministry can tell you that in all probability they were not, because most prisoners do not attend chapel or religious instruction.

Yet you will hardly find an atheist publication that does not brag of the moral superiority of atheism based on the statistics for atheists versus theists in prison.

Statistics can be the most damnable lies.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

But I’m just made of stardust like you, and like everything everywhere is, and always has been.

The ultimate atheist creed. We’re nothing but new configurations of the same old stardust.

I suppose we could paraphrase Orwell:

All stardust is equal, but some stardust is more equal than others.

 

[JDaniel]

If you read Aquinas’ Third Way (the Cosmological Argument), you will see he explicitly invokes “ex nihilo, nihil fit” (see here, for example text of the Five Ways):

But, as I said, even this is not any argument about, or, from, Nothingness. It is an argument about necessity. It is about all things. If all things might not be at some point in infinity, then nothing would exist now. This is a factor concerning the reality of necessity within any type of infinity. The meaning of nothingness is irrelevant - except to understand that all things would disappear without a necessary being.

Thus, ex nihilo is irrelevant to the argument.

Hmmm. If it’s analogous, then creation also begins with “primary matter”.

This is another place where, unfortunately, the concept of primary matter is colored by your concept of matter, in general. I have said, numerous times now, that creation is quite different from causal coming-to-be. God is, in this sense, the Principle of the inception of the universe, not its efficient cause. A Principle is not the same as a cause. It may be a cause, as parents are to a child. But, there are also Principles that are not causes, such as God the Father is the principle of Jesus the Son, but, not His cause. The point on a line is its principle, but, not its cause.

A cause is that on which a thing (the effect) depends for its being or for coming-to-be. A cause is a principle, but, a principle from which a thing proceeds with dependence. Do you see the difference?

This is the point of the ex nihilo idea, though, to reject exactly the analogy you offer here. If creating the universe were “infusing primary matter with form”, it would be analogous, but at odds with the ex nihilo concept.

No. Primary matter is a cause. It is necessary for a thing to come to be, in the causal order. Creation is not dependent upon any of the causes, including Primary matter.

It is rearrangement, though, as any “addition” happening to the cells comes at the precise cost of “subtraction” somehwere else – moving matter and energy in zero-sum ways from one configuration to another. Nothing new is fundamentally created.

Not so. A new form, or formation, is fundamentally new. A new house is fundamentally new. It doesn’t matter if it is made from recycled housing materials or not.

All the atoms of the cells came from somewhere else, were just being used in some not-the-new-cell way, previously.

That’s fine. But that is all that can be said and that does not have the same meaning you have in your previous that there is no thing that is fundamentally new.

Yeah, that’s just moving the same matter and energy around that’s been here since the beginning, though. Nothing is created in the fundamental sense.

Unless via creation.

These are just appearances and patterns of configuration, fundamentally. That’s cool enough, though – there’s a lot to be said for exotic configurations of matter an energy. Being such a thing myself, I can appreciate the significance of that. But I’m just made of stardust like you, and like everything everywhere is, and always has been.

So can I!

Yes, but rules for configuration don’t create anything in a fundamental sense.

True; if you wish to define “fundamental” to mean only that which comes to be via creation. Nevertheless, watching a new form come to be, is analogical to watching a creation coming-to-be, which was my original point.

It’s just “rule based configuration”. Being the product of said rules, myself, I can easily appreciate the difference between a rule for producing “human” vs. “cat”. But it is just rules working on conserved matter and energy, precisely the same energy and matter that has been around since the beginning. There is nothing new under the sun, here.

There is in the case of the universe! The universe was created. Subsequently, it subsists in the order of cause. From the Now between the end of stability and the beginning of the first Planck second, the university needed a cause, if for nothing else than to maintain it in being. There’s no reason why any such unstable brute fact, like any VP, should remain in existence for any length of time at all.

God bless,
jd

God bless,
jd

 

[Touchstone]

But, as I said, even this is not any argument about, or, from, Nothingness. It is an argument about necessity. It is about all things. If all things might not be at some point in infinity, then nothing would exist now.

This is precisely the point where Aquinas invokes ex nihilo, nihil fit. This only holds, per Aquinas, that nothing would exist now if all things were contingent, because they CANNOT COME BACK, per ex nihilo, nihil fit. It’s not an important point, as neither you or I are taking up Aquinas’ position, but on the facts, there, I think you are quite mistaken about Aquinas’ dependence on this assertion. If I’m wrong, then I ask you: on what grounds does Aquinas hold that “things that disappear” do not just “appear” again?

This is a factor concerning the reality of necessity within any type of infinity. The meaning of nothingness is irrelevant - except to understand that all things would disappear without a necessary being.

But that’s not enough to hold off the objection. It’s just the “disappearing” side. Aquinas keeps contingent things from re-appearing with – well, of course, ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Thus, ex nihilo is irrelevant to the argument.

I disagree – Aquinas must depend on this, else the critic would claim “things just come back into being”. See here, for example, from aquinasonline.com:

the principle “ex nihil, nihil fit” is not the linchpin to all of the Five Ways, only of the first three

.

Or see this article, which captures a similar reading to my own:

If this is the case, then there would be nothing now–but such an idea is absurd since we have the evidence of existent things which we can perceive. Yet, that could be because everything pops out of existence, then back into existence. Aquinas answers this from the princilple of ex nihilo, nihil fit–if something pops out of existence, it cannot pop back into existence. Once something ceases to exist, it cannot suddenly exist again. Our sense perceptions and experience tell us that something exists, something is there, therefore everything has not ever gone out of existence. Therefore, all things cannot be contingent. Corollary to this is the conclusion that there must then be such a thing as a necessary existence.

(my emphasis)

That’s not an appeal to authority – no idea who even wrote that last bit – but just a reference that suggests I’m not imagining things in the dependence I’m seeing.

This is another place where, unfortunately, the concept of primary matter is colored by your concept of matter, in general. I have said, numerous times now, that creation is quite different from causal coming-to-be. God is, in this sense, the Principle of the inception of the universe, not its efficient cause. A Principle is not the same as a cause. It may be a cause, as parents are to a child. But, there are also Principles that are not causes, such as God the Father is the principle of Jesus the Son, but, not His cause. The point on a line is its principle, but, not its cause.

Fine with this, with the following distinction: I’m trying to keep “matter” as a physical concept distinct from “primary matter”, in the metaphysical/Thomistic sense. These are not the same thing, and while you say my concept of physical matter is coloring my concept of primary matter, I don’t think that is accidental; ‘primary matter’ I just cannot attach to anything in a propositional way. It’s not that I’m inclined to see physical matter as the same as ‘primary matter’, it’s that I don’t find ‘primary matter’ to be a coherent, or meaningful concept in its own right. What we understand to be conserved is physical matter. We know nothing about "primary matter’, and whether or not it would be conserved. We have no idea what ‘conserved’ would even mean in that context.

A cause is that on which a thing (the effect) depends for its being or for coming-to-be. A cause is a principle, but, a principle from which a thing proceeds with dependence. Do you see the difference?

Sure, but this is not the difficulty, I suggest. The difficulty is that these are just tautologies, wholly unattached from anything real. If I say a “floop” is the “center of a thing’s semantic core”, it has tautological value – it’s a map between statements or concepts of some kind – but it’s a perfect nothing in terms of addressing the real world. “Primary matter” is like that. Or if I’m wrong, this is a good place to show me where ‘pimary matter’ gets grounded in real world semantics.

No. Primary matter is a cause. It is necessary for a thing to come to be, in the causal order. Creation is not dependent upon any of the causes, including Primary matter.

We have perfectly nothing available to us that indicates that ‘primary matter’ cause, or can cause anything, insofar as it is not conflated with ‘physical matter’. We have no basis for thinking ‘primary matter’ is a real-world ‘thing’ at all, never mind assessing its properties or capabilities. These are just tautologies that have an unfortunate overload with terms that are grounded in real world experience and concepts.

If you dispute this, then let’s have a look at how we reiify our concept of ‘primary matter’.

Just for reference, here’s the page we walked through in this previous email loop discussion, Aristotle rather than Aquinas, but the tautological nature of the idea is the same:

faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/zeta17.htm

Only provided to give you an idea of what I’m thinking about regarding “matter”.
-TS

 

[JDaniel]

This is precisely the point where Aquinas invokes ex nihilo, nihil fit. This only holds, per Aquinas, that nothing would exist now if all things were contingent, because they CANNOT COME BACK, per ex nihilo, nihil fit. It’s not an important point, as neither you or I are taking up Aquinas’ position, but on the facts, there, I think you are quite mistaken about Aquinas’ dependence on this assertion. If I’m wrong, then I ask you: on what grounds does Aquinas hold that “things that disappear” do not just “appear” again?

TS:
Aquinas does not invoke Ex nihilo, nihil fit. This is from Parmenides, not Aquinas. If you look it up on the web, I’m sure you’ll find that I am right.

Here is the Third Proof:

“The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things—which all call God.”

But that’s not enough to hold off the objection. It’s just the “disappearing” side. Aquinas keeps contingent things from re-appearing with – well, of course, ex nihilo, nihil fit.

It is possible, but, only in the vaguest sense. Perhaps he quoted Parmenides for some other purpose. But, “ex nihilo” is not a salient part of his arguments. Perhaps the, “nihil fit” part, but not the “ex nihilo” part. I am the Aquinas expert! Don’t let me have to tell you again!

I disagree – Aquinas must depend on this, else the critic would claim “things just come back into being”. See here, for example, from aquinasonline.com:

No. Aquinas is looking at the natural world. He sees - like everyone else sees - that things die and don’t come back. He has no need to invoke Parmenides’ statement.

Fine with this, with the following distinction: I’m trying to keep “matter” as a physical concept distinct from “primary matter”, in the metaphysical/Thomistic sense.

Interestingly, this sense is certainly Aquinian, but, it is not “metaphysical.” This is from St. Thomas’ general science of nature, helped a bit by Aristotle.

These are not the same thing, and while you say my concept of physical matter is coloring my concept of primary matter, I don’t think that is accidental; ‘primary matter’ I just cannot attach to anything in a propositional way. It’s not that I’m inclined to see physical matter as the same as ‘primary matter’, it’s that I don’t find ‘primary matter’ to be a coherent, or meaningful concept in its own right.

Since Aquinas did not have the powerful microscopes available today and since he did not have the mathematics that might point him in the direction QM, he called it “primary matter.” For Aquinas, we don’t know what primary matter is, but, we know that it is one part of the privation-to-act causal motion in the action of motion and coming-to-be. It such is “quarks,” so be it.

What we understand to be conserved is physical matter. We know nothing about "primary matter’, and whether or not it would be conserved. We have no idea what ‘conserved’ would even mean in that context.

Well, as I just said, it could be as simple as “quarks.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Or see this article, which captures a similar reading to my own:

(my emphasis)

That’s not an appeal to authority – no idea who even wrote that last bit – but just a reference that suggests I’m not imagining things in the dependence I’m seeing.

There are lots of misstatements, misquotes and mistakes made by people when it comes to St. Thomas. But, I know what I am talking about.

Sure, but this is not the difficulty, I suggest. The difficulty is that these are just tautologies, wholly unattached from anything real. If I say a “floop” is the “center of a thing’s semantic core”, it has tautological value – it’s a map between statements or concepts of some kind – but it’s a perfect nothing in terms of addressing the real world. “Primary matter” is like that. Or if I’m wrong, this is a good place to show me where ‘pimary matter’ gets grounded in real world semantics.

Not yet. I would prefer to open a new thread and not derail this one. although, this has been quite enjoyable.

We have perfectly nothing available to us that indicates that ‘primary matter’ cause, or can cause anything, insofar as it is not conflated with ‘physical matter’. We have no basis for thinking ‘primary matter’ is a real-world ‘thing’ at all, never mind assessing its properties or capabilities. These are just tautologies that have an unfortunate overload with terms that are grounded in real world experience and concepts.

Naked assertion.

If you dispute this, then let’s have a look at how we reiify our concept of ‘primary matter’.

I will start a new thread, but, not tonight. I’m too tired. Look for it tomorrow evening.

God bless,
jd

 

[FOFEBA]

This thread illustrates the challenge of any axiomatic system. Aquinas stands (to use one example) only if one accepts his axioms, such as regarding the nature of infinity. While it would be absurd not to have some accepted starting point for any logical discussion, the original axioms to the discussion are the limiting factors to the discussion.

So, when one says that something has been proved in such a system, there is also the necessary caveat that the thing has been proved, if one accepts as truth the relevant axioms and resulting postulates.

Perhaps I am stating the obvious. I think it was Godel who first pointed this out systematically.

 

[Touchstone]

There are lots of misstatements, misquotes and mistakes made by people when it comes to St. Thomas. But, I know what I am talking about.

OK. Fair enough for now. I found a couple good expositions on this via scholar.google.com, one an article in Sophia that I thought might have the kind of gravitas you would appreciate, but that really isn’t a dog I have in the hunt, here.

Not yet. I would prefer to open a new thread and not derail this one. although, this has been quite enjoyable.

That sounds a good idea.

Naked assertion.

I think “we have nothing” for some type must stand as an assertion, to start, no? It can only be falsified, but that would come from someone challenging the assertion. If I say “there are no unicorns”, I suppose I could be pressed to document all the places we’ve looked, but that’s busywork; this is implicit in the claim. It may be false, and unicorns are known, documented, or somehow inferred, etc. But he claim of absence is not amenable to documentation, unless there is some expected place it should be that admits of demonstration:* the stuff that must be here is not*.

At a high level, “primary matter” isn’t even a meaningful term – and its not for lack of reading lots and lots of discourse about it over many years, now. It just isn’t something I have any idea how to identify, substantiate or falsify, even after all that. So I think ‘prime matter is a nothing’ is as far as I could possibly go. I don’t even have a handle on what is we’re looking for. As close as other come in this is the offering of physics, masquerading as ‘prime matter’, a conflation.

Given that, what more would you expect? Maybe I should just say “give me a working handle on prime matter in some practicable sense?”.

I will start a new thread, but, not tonight. I’m too tired. Look for it tomorrow evening.

God bless,
jd

Will do, thanks.

-TS

 

[JDaniel]

This thread illustrates the challenge of any axiomatic system. Aquinas stands (to use one example) only if one accepts his axioms, such as regarding the nature of infinity. While it would be absurd not to have some accepted starting point for any logical discussion, the original axioms to the discussion are the limiting factors to the discussion.

I’m not exactly clear on what your trying to convey, but, I think you are one of those who has misunderstood. What axiom(s) does Aquinas support regarding the subject infinity?

So, when one says that something has been proved in such a system, there is also the necessary caveat that the thing has been proved, if one accepts as truth the relevant axioms and resulting postulates.

But, that is why one should start with logic. Logic teaches us how to make a critical ordering of our acts of reasoning. Axioms, rules, etc., can be arbitrary and capricious. For example, the concept of infinity when properly conceptualized, creates its own raison d’etre. It is not merely an axiom, per se.

Perhaps I am stating the obvious. I think it was Godel who first pointed this out systematically.

So, perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

God bless,
jd

 

[FOFEBA]

An axiom is anything which one accepts a priori.

For example, in Euclidean geometry, it might be the notion of a planar surface. Since Godel, non Euclidean geometry has evolved, in which the previous assumptions have been discarded.

In the fields of science, I think that physics has been the area in which it has been shown that our own perceptions and senses introduce axioms which can distort our understanding. The turning point was Einstein, and then on from there into quantum physics.

Everyone is a product of his or her perceptions. Logical arguments must have some basis, but we know from experience that if the basis is our own limited perceptions and prejudices, then the logical conclusions are limited by those perceptions and prejudices.

There is no doubt that this fact is important when we consider the thoughts of a philosopher or theologian, such as Aquinas. The notions of the nature of things which he embraced would be considered naive or quaint by any scientist today. Yet this was the base from which he derived many of this conclusions.

There are probably more people who would say that his so called “proof” of God is one such argument, and far from a proof of much other than his own perceptions of reality, than there are people who would call his “proofs” anything like a proof.