Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
Bristol University’s Alexander Bird has defended the good old cumulative epistemic approach to scientific knowledge:
Science (or some particular scientific field or theory) makes progress precisely when it shows accumulation of scientific knowledge; an episode in science is progressive when at the end of the episode there is more knowledge than at the beginning. ("What is Scientific Progress?" Noûs 41 (2007) 64–89. available here).
I, like other mad-dog Popperians, do not think that science can progress like this. Science, the Popper-nutter argues, does not produce “knowledge”, in the sense of “justified/warranted true belief”. Now, Bird has a different definition of “knowledge” from the “standard” view of knowledge as “justified/warranted true belief”, but on Bird’s view of knowledge, knowledge does entail justification. The Popperian view is that justification cannot be had: thus no knowledge. I’d go further and deny that any of our theories (especially the interesting ones) are true.
And I’m a bit iffy about the “belief” bit. What need to go around believing stuff: just provisionally adopt them and get on with it.
What any form of enquiry, not just science, produces is “conjectures” or, if we want to be brutally frank, “guesswork”. Yet the average Popperian is also convinced that our enquiries do progress and is also convinced that they progress quite a bit. In fact, a lot.
Now how would this be possible if enquiry is guesswork? I want to sketch out a way that we can secure a progression in our enquiries without conditions I think cannot be met, implied by the cumulative knowledge view. There are conditions, three, that I hope to show are sufficient to entail a progression. Two of these conditions can be readily met, the third needs, to say the least, a little work on. Whether this progression can be thought of as progress (a progression from social drinking to alcoholism is hardly progress) is largely a matter for elsewhere, but I will have a little bit to say on this later.
What it is a progression of
First, though, I want to say what it is a progression of. It is a progression of Popper’s “Objective Knowledge”. The ‘objectivity’ of the ‘knowledge’ Popper discussed lay in its abstraction from any knowing agent. This ‘knowledge’ lies not in the minds of individuals but in libraries, journals, in computer records and, in so far as they entail declarative statements, in the traditions and norms of a society. The genome of the gorilla, for example, is not “known” by anybody; though, as it is recorded in an accessible manner, it is “known”.
Whilst this is in contrast to other concepts of knowledge that concentrate on just those questions of whether and how S knows p the contrast is not problematical. It is generally accepted that there is ‘this type’ of knowledge and ‘that type’ of knowledge and all that is required is make sure everyone is clear on which type is the current subject of debate; which I hope I have done above.
More of an issue is whether it is “knowledge”, being neither true nor, consequently, justified. The calor theory of heat, spontaneous generation of life, that matter is made up of four elements and so on are just plain false. Yet they were treated as being true, were taught, accepted, used in calculations and held their place in the body of statements society at a particular time called ‘knowledge’.
To avoid confusion and, perhaps, dodge a difficult and tangential debate I will divert from Popper’s terminology (gasp as he avoids the Duhem thesis! Thrill as he sidesteps the Quine thesis!). The totality of the declarative statements of a society, generally accepted by that society, taught, used in calculations and held to be ‘knowledge’ will be called a ‘world model’ and denoted by W.
How the Progression arises
Let us take a feature, F, of World Models and create a structure by showing all possible World Models as points on an imaginary graph. Where one World Model has more F than another it is shown as “higher” than that other World Model. Where World Models are equal in F they are represented as at equal height.
We won’t stipulate exactly what F is, but assume that the more F a World Model has the better it is. As there are a lot more terrible World Models than “vaguely satisfactory” ones; more that are “vaguely satisfactory” than “quite good”; more “quite good” than “good” and just the one best World Model, our structure will resemble a (perhaps not very regular) triangle.
Now let us begin by formulating a World Model, W0, by any irrational or unreliable method you wish to adopt. We may use astrology, legend, or (my own favourite) drinking lots of Real Ale and blurting out the first thing that comes into our head. For the purpose of the argument it matters not which “method” is used, just that it is equivalent to pure guesswork; resulting in W0 occupying an essentially random position in the structure and being, decidedly, not formed of knowledge. W0’s position in the structure will have a vertical component and a horizontal component. We can call the value of the vertical component, more likely than not towards the lower part of the structure, “α”. A total guess of a World Model will, on average, give us a World Model with an F-rank of α. (We can ignore the horizontal component.)
We can either stick with W0, or we can adopt a new world model, W1. If we stick with W0, we remain with a World Model with an F-ranking of α. If we produce a rival World Model, W1, de nuovo, by repeating in its entirety the process used to formulate W0, we are likely, also, to end up with a World Model with an F-ranking of around α. Of course, we may guess repeatedly, choosing the highest ranking of our guesses and end up with a W1 with an F-ranking of α + x. If we continue guessing we may find a World Model ranked still higher. As, though, the de nuovo guesses will average around α most will be lower ranked than W1 and the higher the ranking of W1 the more improbable any “pure” guess will be an advance.
An alternative is not to formulate new World Model’s de nuovo but by adding new elements to and removing existing elements from W0 . Whilst the same irrational guess may be the sole “basis” of both the formulation of new elements and the decision to reject old elements, the distribution of new World Models will be not quite so random as a de nuovo guess: the guess is not “pure”. The new World Models will form a “cloud” around W0 : some higher, some lower, but all in proximity to α. Most will be lower than α. Similar comments to those made with regard to the shape of the overall structure will apply to the cloud. It is a lot easier to come up with theories that are worse than our current theories to create a new world model than it is to improve on current theories. The cloud, then, will be vaguely triangular weighted to “not as high as α”. Some of the World Models, though, will be higher that α and there will likely be a highest World Model that is not W0 . Each time we repeat the process of generating a number of World Model’s the highest generated World Model may form a different differential in ranking to the original World Model, but let us introduce the concept of a typical differential, “ß”. Choose the highest ranked model and we end up with a W1 with an F-ranking of, typically, α + ß.
Creating new World Models by guessing elements to add to W1 and guessing elements of W1 to remove will produce a cloud of World Models in proximity to α + ß with one, typically, at a location ß higher than α + ß. Choose this World Model and we end up with a W2 with a rank of, typically, α + 2ß. Repeating the process produces a cloud around α + 2ß, a World Model ß higher than that and a W3 of rank α + 3ß.
So we have a clear progression, (α, α + ß, α + 2ß α + 3ß… α + xß) dependent on:
- a decision to formulate new World Models by partial removal and addition of elements of the currently adopted World Model;
- our ability to reliably rank World Models on the basis of their F;
- a decision to change the World Model adopted only on the basis that the new World Model has a higher F-ranking than the currently adopted model.
Now I would say that “F” is “being like the truth” (“verisimilitude”) and, if I could ever get my act on it together, explain the nice neat clear exposition of it sitting in the back of my mind that shows just how easy it is to compare rival World Models for their verisimilitude. Others would also identify F with verisimilitude, but be a lot less sanguine about saying what it is and how to recognise it (some trivial things about lots of great minds trying to figure it out and, so far, failing).
It is desirable that World Models increase in verisimilitude over time and that desirability of verisimilitude would mean any progression of increasing verisimilitude would be progress. But the current fuzzy nature of our understanding of the concept must call into question whether we can reliably rank World Models on this basis.
That is unless we tweak our definition of F. We do take World Models to be more or less like the truth than other World Models. A World Model that holds the earth to be a sphere appears more like the truth than a World Model that differs only in thinking the earth to be flat. A World Model that holds “homeopathy is junk” appears more like the truth than one that holds “there’s something in it. It helped my aunt with her hayfever so maybe it’ll cure cancer”. Ranking in terms of apparent verisimilitude may not reliably rank World Models in terms of actual verisimilitude. But it sure does rank them in terms of apparent verisimilitude.
We can, therefore, secure a progression in terms of apparent verisimilitude without accumulating justification, without accumulating truth, whithout “believing” our theories (just adopting them for use); in short without accumulating knowledge. And, as apparent verisimilitude is desirable in its own right, that progression is progress.
Monday, 23 July 2012
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
Certain forms of "Presuppositional Apologetics", including most of the forms floating around the internet, hold
1. The Bible is the inerrant word of God
2. To take anything extra-Biblical as evidence for God (“evidentialism”) is sinful
The same presuppositionalists are also rather fond of quoting 1 Romans 20 in support of a claim that atheists do, despite their protestations, believe in God every bit as much as the devout:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuseNow, from 1, this is the inerrant word of God. And this inerrant word of God cites extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of God. “(T)he things that are made” are not exhausted by the Bible: we would have a poor creator whose only work was a book. Yet “the things that are made” are presented as reason the non-Christian should or, indeed, does believe in God.
It seems that God is an evidentialist. And that presuppositionalists think He's wrong.
Sunday, 17 June 2012
There is a story that Picasso, on seeing the cave paintings at Lascaux/Altimara said "we have learnt nothing in 12,000 years". On the one hand, like many of these little stories, it may be apocryphal. On the other; if he had said it, he would have been right:
There has been a civil war in Thebes (Greek Thebes, not the Egyptian one) following the death of Oedipus. Oedipus' two sons have been on opposite sides of the the war and, before the play opens, have managed to kill each other. A chap called Creon (also related to Oedipus) becomes King and decides to restore some order. He orders the burial of one brother, Eteocles, who was a good chap. The other, Polyneices, though:
came back from exile, and sought to consume utterly with fire the city of his fathers and the shrines of his fathers' gods, sought to taste of kindred blood, and to lead the remnant into slaveryNot a nice guy. Something must be done. Or rather, nothing: Creon decrees that no one should bury him.
Antigone, daughter of Oedipus (we're talking Oedipus here: everyone's going to be related) disagrees. You should bury the dead. I hear your arguments about punishment and the security of the state and, well, you can stick them up your arse. You should bury the dead and, you know what, I'm going to bury him.
Creon has a point. For crying out loud, Polyneices was trying to destroy everything. Burial, like a fair trial or not being tortured is all well and good; but aren't Antigone's objections like those "airy-fairy civil liberties" idealist liberals go on about? Let us repeal the right to a burial act safeguard the lives and liberties of the citizens of Thebes.
Antigone also has a point. You've just got to bury the dead. Not to, like detention without trial, torture, suppressing civil liberties or allowing Bill Cash to decide what "rights" you have, is just immoral.
Morality versus practicality: off we go. Throwing in a few gods and the ancient Greek obsession with prophesy Sophocles just lets the story unfold from there.
And Sophocles not only lets a story run based on around major concerns of a society 2,500 years after his death but does it way better than most would do it today. This is a Greek tragedy: it all ends horribly. Nobody today seems to be able to "do" anything but a happy ending. Hollywood, in particular, doesn't seem able to cope with anything but "uplifting". This "it all works out well in the end" nonsense absolves the characters and, by proxy, us of responsibility for their and our actions. In a Greek tragedy the consequences of actions come home to roost. Big time.
It's a great play and a great production. A better, more relevant and more honest story than any likely to be served up today. We have learnt nothing: and forgotten much.
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
- People of faith: People who pretend to know things they don't know
- Interfaith initiative: Initiative of people pretending to know things they don't know combined with other people pretending to know different things which they don't know either
- The Faith Community: Community of Pretending to Know things you don't Know
- The Tony Blair Pretending to Know Things you don’t Know Foundation
Friday, 4 May 2012
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Hesekiah made an important concession on his blog:
I agree. I see we have something in common.
I don't mean "important concession" in the sense of "dumb pre-supper has admitted something he shouldn't have. Hah hah hah!" but that it is a concession that might allow us to have a dialogue; something that the standard pre-suppositionalist position (tactic?) of denying any common ground with an opponent prevents.
The Transcendental Argument for God (TAG)
Above is a long (though not as long as I could make it) demonstration of an alternative theory to the "pre-suppositions" underpinning TAG. The above is to TAG as D is to the model abductive argument: we don't need proof, certainty, or "knowledge"; this is how we can do things.
Have I got an E3 for TAG? Why yes. You see TAG is in much the same form as an abductive argument, a form that does not show that its conclusion is true, but that others are false. But the "evidence" it takes is that an abductive argument isn't good enough, you must establish proof, certainty and "knowledge". Now if an abductive argument is not good enough then TAG, which is an abductive argument, is not good enough. TAG argues for it's own rejection.
Friday, 20 April 2012
The little finicky bits around "begin" and "exist", normally of no import, are crucial for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. A quick reminder of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (“KCA”):
1. Everything that begins to exist has a causeWhy "everything that begins to exist" and not "everything that exists"? Because the role the KCA plays in arguing for God depends on differentiating God from the universe. There needs to be a causal problem with the universe that is not a problem with God so God can be invoked to solve that problem. “Everything”, though, includes God; the argument would fail if “everything that exists” were the first premise.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Now we could take something "began to exist" as meaning that
Condition 1: that thing existsIf one accepts the arguments William Lane Craig (the main contemporary advocate of the KCA) takes from philosophy and modern physics then one has to accept that, in this sense, the universe did have a beginning. Modern physics theorises that not only did the universe begin, but time itself began.
Condition 2: there is an earliest time when that thing existed.
The philosophical arguments Craig refers to also posit a beginning of time:
- “In other words, the series of past events must be finite and have had a beginning.”If time began then there is an earliest time. If there is an earliest time then there is an earliest time when the universe existed. The universe exists (condition 1) and there is an earliest time when the universe existed (condition 2): the universe began to exist.
- “an actually infinite series of past events could never elapse; since the series of past events has obviously elapsed, the number of past events must be finite.”
And so, if He exists, did God.
If He exists He fulfils condition 1. As time itself began there is an earliest time when He existed, fulfilling condition 2.
If time itself began everything that exists began to exist. There is no difference between “everything that exists” and “everything that begins to exist” and, so, the argument fails.
An earliest time but no X
If the argument is to be saved another condition, condition “X”, must be added to the concept of “begins to exist”. Condition X must also be applicable to the universe but not applicable to God.
Condition X1: and there must be a prior time when the thing did not exist
This seems fine. Almost everything, except God, fulfils the three new conditions. They exist, there was an earliest time that they existed and there was a time earlier than when they existed. Almost everything, though. There is no time earlier than the earliest time the universe existed. If we accept condition X1 then God did not begin to exist, but neither did the universe.
Craig’s “solution” is along the lines of God “existing timelessly”.
Condition X2: and it must not exist timelessly.WTF, though, is “existing timelessly”? “Existence” seems to require persistence in time. Neanderthals, though they do not exist now, persisted for some quarter of a million years. Exotic particles produced in particle accelerators exist for nanoseconds. There is no time when Hobbits existed. Did Hobbits exist “timelessly” whilst Neanderthals and exotic particles happened to exist timefully?
It seems that Neanderthals and exotic particles do not so much exist in a certain time-related way but exist because they existed in time. Existing “timelessly”, à la Bilbo Baggins, is another way of saying “not existing”.
Let us, though, allow this idea of “existing timelessly” and allow that something that “exists timelessly” does not begin to exist. Why believe that the universe does not exist timelessly? After all, we’ve such little idea of what existing timelessly amounts to, we can hardly rule it out.
So there we have it. The KCA depends on the universe beginning to exist and God not beginning to exist.
But if we say that the universe must have begun, well so did God. If we say that God did not begin to exist, then neither did the universe.
Thursday, 19 April 2012
I have a question on the Transcendental Argument for God. Greg Bahnsen boiled it down to:
The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without him, it is impossible to prove anything.My question is this: what is the argument? Seriously. I can accept, in its entirety, the alleged proof and absolutely nothing follows from it.
"Without [God] it is impossible to prove anything" can be rephrased as:
"God exists or it is impossible to prove anything."With the "or" being an inclusive "or": the statement is false only if both phrases are false. The statement is true when either:
1. God exists and it is possible to prove something
2. God exists and it is impossible to prove anything
3. God does not exist and it is impossible to prove anything
Now a conclusion follows from its premises if its negation generates a contradiction, if the negated conclusion and the premises cannot be true at the same time. So what conclusion follows from "God exists or it is impossible to prove anything"?
It's not "God exists". The negation of "God exists" is "God does not exist", and "God does not exist" can be true at the same time as "God exists or it is impossible to prove anything." (it's situation 3)
It's not "it is possible to prove something". The negation of "it is possible to prove something" is "it is impossible to prove anything" and that is the second situation.
It's not "it is impossible to prove anything". The negation of "it is impossible to prove anything" is "it is possible to prove something" and that is the first situation.
Sunday, 1 April 2012
The laws of logic are necessary truths about truths; they are necessarily true propositions. Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person. A necessarily existent person must be spiritual in nature, because no physical entity exists necessarily. Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being.
“Since [the laws of logic] are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world.”
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Monday, 13 February 2012
“His confusion on this point is breath-taking. His evidential argument from evil, at its very best, shows, at most, that it is probable that God does not exist. The probability is less than 1. To defeat the ontological argument with an argument from evil, his argument would have to entail that God does not exist. The probability that God does not exist would have to be 1. It would have to prove, as he says, that the conclusion of Craig’s argument is false. But Law’s own argument, as a matter of logic alone, cannot achieve this goal. It is a probabilistic argument. As such, it leaves open the possibility that God exists, even if the probability is quite low.”
- If x then y
- Thus y
- The first swan seen is white
- The second swan seen is white
- The third swan seen is white
- The nth swan seen is white
- Thus all swans are white
- If x then y
- Not y
- Thus not x
And the Evidential Problem of Evil runs like this:
- If God existed then there wouldn’t be so much pointless suffering in the world
- There is so much suffering in the world
- Thus God does not exist.
- If God is possible then God exists (Modal Ontological Argument)
- God does not exist (Evidential Argument from Evil)
- Thus God is not possible
- All elephants are pink
- Socrates is an elephant
- Socrates is mortal
The Evidential Argument from Evil is a better counter argument than picking holes in Craig's logic and questioning his premises. Whilst direct criticisms of Craig's arguments may cast doubt on those arguments the Evidential Problem of Evil shows them to be false.
BibliographyCraig, W. L. (2010, February 4). Five Arguments for God. Retrieved February 8, 2012, from The Gospel Coalition: http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/five_arguments_for_god/
chab123 (2011, October 24) The Missing Ontological Argument in the Craig vs. Law Debate. Retreived February 13, 2012, from Ratio Christi-at The