yes,it is

I am commenting again....this is so worth the time to listen. It is wonderful.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...
I'm not sure where your pig and lion comparisons come from?
Genes are the way the mixing function of traits works.
You have not shown Evolution is incorrect.

psychology is only concerned with very narrow areas. scientific method is applied, but the reality is, historically in the area of psychology it hasn't been done all that well. philosophy is that from which scientific method is developed. One must understand the power of reason and logic before one can develop a science

Yes, we share DNA with other living beings on this planet. So? We share DNA traits with snails and pine trees and bubonic plague bacteria. The animal we are "closest to," physically and genetically, the one we share the most common traits with, is the pig. What does *that* do to evolutionary theory? By comparison, apes are really no closer than lions. About the only thing we share to a greater degree than aardvarks is that both humans and apes tend to walk around on two feet.

I will agree we have the ability to reason. At least some humans still do....

I don't see distinction. Both philosophy and psychology start with a premise, use data to logically assess the accuracy of the premise, and then, using standardized techniques, arrive at a conclusion. Actually, after thinking about it, from the standpoint of purely scientific research, psychology wins, hands down. It has reproducible paradigms which can be used across studies and topics. Ditto with sociology. Frankly, if I was attempting to argue FOR philosophy, I probably wouldn't want to compare it like that. Just a friendly little thought.....

The more I study and research Ayn Rand, the more my understanding of her religiosity is evolving. At one time I said something similar to what you just said. Today, I feel is it significantly different.

Ayn Rand is not an atheist. She claimed to be, and probably believed herself to be. But she wasn't. She was a Secular Humanist, through and through. She believed herself perfect in this religious dogma -- even while refusing to acknowledge it as such. I guess at the same time, I should point out that Rand and Secular Humanism have one major point of distinction -- and it is a *MAJOR* point, to be sure. Secular Humanism believes in "social responsibility" and Rand totally rejects this notion. But from the outside, that is much like watching Shiite and Sunny Muslims argue about which one is the true religion. Most of us don't care.

Also, the major humanists she would have known (Charles Potter, John Dunphy, and John Dewey) saw humanism in a type of religious aura. As Dunphy put it: "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: A religion of humanity -- utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to carry humanist values into wherever they teach. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." Since Rand obstinately refused to acknowledge religion in any form as worthwhile, she would have recoiled from a religiously defined humanism as well. But from the view of history, this is little more than syntactic sugar wrapped around the reality to make it palatable for the masses. Rand would have rejected the same references to religiosity that others were attracted to. But the core beliefs are what I am talking about.

Where it comes down to "reality," Rand had the attitudes needed to be an apostle to the sect of secular humanism. One day she may be acknowledged as such. For people who like these attitudes in her (and in S/H), this is not a slam, but a complement. For others, is might seem like a denigrating remark. I intend it to be an observation, and neither a complement or derogatory.

Rand, personally, had a number of concepts with are in line with Secular Humanism. She was probably more radical in her belief that there is no possibility of a god-like diety. But she wrapped up into herself the qualities which many ascribe to deity. Her reason was without flaw; she was perfect within the realm of her reason and life, I doubt she would recoil at the statement that she worshiped her mind, she allowed for no other potential dogma or doctrine than her own, etc. She believed herself to be her deity. Hence she was not an atheist.

But, again, I believe her uncompromising attitude towards anything remotely related to religion, combined with her ardent zeal in promulgating her new dogma of Objectivism, would have caused her to never acknowledge the similarities.

I guess for Objectivism, some might thing that might be too bad. The S/H camp does not need the Objectivists -- they control too much and are too well entrenched in the power structure driving our society. But if Objectivism could have joined in with S/H, it might have made a difference in where things were going, and, I think, that difference could have only been for the better.

Rand came up with a wonderful philosophy. It is making a difference. Hopefully the movies will continue to bring more folks to the table.

just so, spin

I am ignorant about objectivism. After reading a few chapters of the tyranny of words I can recognize it is probable redefining objectivism will happen but it could make it fuzzy as easy as clearer. I have a suspicion Ayn Rand used the making of money as an example to make her philosophical point. I can imagine (because I don’t know for sure) she didn’t want to argue religion because that wasn’t her focus. Of course many religious ideologies are the antithesis of her philosophy, which is a catch 22. Jesus dying for our sins is just not her proposition. As a philosophy from the point of three conflicts Man vs. Himself, Man and Nature objectivism works pretty good. When the world didn’t just say cool that’s how we’re going to live she had to beat the drum slowly, all the while not letting herself get sidetracked. I wonder if she wasn’t so blunt about personal spirituality, that could coexist with her philosophy but not so much liberation theology for example. But yes people will try to Tyrannize her words and maybe improve them. But unlike me, I feel like she put a lot of thought into objectivism and she’s probably right about it.

global warming. just because someone calls it science does not mean in developing the theory one rigidly stuck to scientific theory and logical reasoning. they decided to not stick to scientific principles and they threw in a bunch of belief and faith (in a theory not logically derived). It matters not who is to blame for this particular theory, for the purposes of this discussion the reasoning is the same.
Evolution:Most humans understand two things: 1. they do not look exactly like their mother or father.(trait mixing function). 2. don't plant a palm tree outside in the artic.(selection function). This by simple observation. We have DNA very similar to chimpanzees and in fact, DNA traits similar to other animals. I can't help it, you do not enjoy sharing traits with apes. You and I are animals. But your distinguishing characteristic is your ability to reason.

Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

Okay. So what? Are we just looking for something we both agree on? Okay, I agree.

How does that further the discussion?

What point have I made which this alters or invalidates?

Occam's razor is a logical principle, that basically states the proposition with has the fewest assumptions should be given greater weight. It also states that among competing propositions of equal weight, the simplest one should be selected. The application of Occam's razor is that we should proceed through simpler explanations of the proposition until its ability to explain the proposition becomes limited.

I have heard lines like "when ancients did not [know] the cause of thunder or lightening" that it was ascribed to god. I have yet to see this documented except as assumptions by anthropologists and archeologists. When I look at the results of the "ancients," I see things we cannot duplicate today, and scientific understandings which are only today being understood. So at least *some* of the "ancients" were more clueful than we are today.

Global warming is an interesting example. This is a false science. One of the original conspirators has recanted, and his comments were ignored by the mainline media. That it is still being believed in is a proof that much of our society has abandoned reason and logic, and are now being led by politicians who are functionally clueless about the science and/or are corrupt enough that they don't care. When speaking of "perverting scientific inquiry," it is not the religionists doing it, but corrupt scientists and politicians.

When applying Occam's razor to religion, it is the agnostic whose explanation is the only one who can look at the razor with confidence. Religionists have much evidence in helping them to find some reasoned explanations which can pass the process. Atheists, however, have none. The assumptions required to believe that there is no God (or god or intelligent design), nor could there possibly be a god, are so huge that virtually none of them could pass through Occam's razor unscathed.

There are points within the "theory" of evolution which are observationally and empirically obvious. But that does not imply all of them are. Those who demand 100% belief in evolution cannot mount a defense which passes reason, logic, or the razor, because of all of the assumptions that have to be taken as axiomatic.

And talking about "disastrous consequences," think of what has come to pass because of secular humanism, a byproduct of combining evolution and atheism. In a nutshell, secular humanism basically states that we, as humans, are doing a really good job for advanced apes. What kind of twisted logic gave us THAT gem?

Lee, I am familiar with Laws of Thought. there is no need to broaden the discussion to incorporate all logical systems. They have different premises. However,. no matter what, logic is based on the fact that contradictions do not exist. Once one removes that restriction, we have anything goes.

Occam's Razor.
The problem with the assertion there is a God is it is an explanation boiling down to I do not know the answer to something(s). I ascribe the answer to God. The problem with this is it stops the inquiry. Historically, when ancients did not now the cause of thunder and lightening, the ascribed gods to it. When lightening burned down a house, perhaps a god need appeasement-sacrifice a virgin to the volcano. Modern day example: the refusal to understand evolution. Perverting scientific inquiry, leading to other errors in science. The same error of ignoring science because of a belief, what about global warming? When one abandons reason and logic, it will always lead to disastrous consequences.
soviet Russia, under Stalin, seriously eroded biological science by forcing the science to conform with communist doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lys...

The links I provided show a much broader concept of philosophical logic than you espouse. I also posted a direct comment concerning the "Law of Identity."

Actually the three laws called the "Laws of Thought," of which the "Law of Identity" is the first one. Using it as the "rules of engagement," so to speak, it is easy to take a philosophical proposition and test it for validity. Using these three laws, to rephrase, it is possible to see if a philosophical proposition is valid or not.

I have actually used these three in my previous critiques. While I did not use the names of these laws, the concepts were used.

well, I'm permalinked-so it's harder for me to see the posts and once it gets to that point and moves to another area of the post, it's harder to follow. plus
I can't read my comment until I post it is, which means I have to edit it immediately. it's getting tedious

I watched this video, thanks. I liked the way she handled the person behind her who was milking a cow or something, with the pail rattling around. The lady is unshakable in her common sense philosophy that hums like a tuning fork with the ring of truth. I refuse to be a victim no matter what happens. for whatever small gain the sympathy yields me the cost in self-esteem is much too high.

There are probably more than you think following this discussion...no need to start over.

This original thread would have 'died' a natural death days ago!

Thanks for posting. Thanks for posting the link.

The links above do not contradict my statements. If you wish to discuss a non-rigid system, ie. fuzzy logic, which is based on probabilities, we can. What I will concede: numbers are more clearly defined. Lee, if you which to continue, may I suggest you post something. Then you can give the discussion perimeters that you would like and it might encourage more participation. :)

http://www.peikoff.com/lr/interview.htm

Logic actually has multiple laws, depending on which style of logical thought is being discussed. The "Law of Identity" is one of three "laws of thought." They are:

1) Law of Identity: This states that things are the same as themselves, and different from other things. If you have an item, A, then it is the same as A, and different than ~A (not A).

2) Law of Non-contradiction: This states you cannot say something is both A and ~A.

3) Law of Excluded Middle: This states that there is only A and ~A, and no other group. If it is not an A, then it is a ~A.

If a logical argument fails in any of these three, then it is not a valid logical argument. If any statement along the way from initial proposition to final conclusion fails in any of these three, then the conclusion, irrespective of how right it "feels" is not valid.

A frequent source of failure is the third law, where many of the logical fallacies come into play. If the philosophical argument, for instance, states there are only two groups of people, and the reality is there are many groups, then everything else in the argument fails.

Some try to use these arguments in an attempt to justify the logical nature of the argument or proposition, but that is backwards. These are not justifications for an argument, but are limitations of the validity of the argument. These are rules the logical argument must pass in order to be considered valid.

Here are a couple of links that might help either clear things up, or muddy the water -- depending on your point of view... :-)

===========================
From http://philosophy.wikia.com/wiki/Logic: Logic is generally understood and accepted as a set of rules that tell us when an argument's premises support their conclusion. An understanding of just what logic is, can be enhanced by delineating it from what it is not:
* Logic is not the 'groundness of being' - that's metaphysics.
* Logic is not a set of laws that governs the universe - that's physics.
* Logic is not an immaterial "entity" that transcends reality - that's speculative theology.
* Logic is not a set of laws that governs human behavior - that's psychology.
* Logic is not a method for 'studying the world' - that's science.
* Logic is not the method for assessing axioms - that's a matter of pure reason.
* Logic is not a way of evaluating 'truth' - that's philosophy.

Arguments

An argument is made up of groups of statements we call propositions - and every proposition contains a truth value. In the case of classic logic, this truth value is either "true" or false" - a rule we can call "bivalence". Formally: for any proposition P, P is either true or false. We use the term "proposition" instead of "sentence" because a proposition is more than just a sentence, it is a declarative sentence - asserting a specific and coherent claim, that is either true or false.

There are two types of propositions within an argument. The first, the premise, makes a commitment to truth, and is used as evidence to support the second type of proposition, the conclusion, which is the claim the argument is supposed to prove. An argument must at least imply one of each.

The study of logic, therefore, is the effort to determine the conditions under which one is justified in passing from the premises to the conclusion that logically must follow them. When an argument has this sort of justification, it is a valid argument. A valid argument with true premises is a sound argument, and guarantees the truth of its conclusion.


===========================
From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristo... All Aristotle's logic revolves around one notion: the deduction. A thorough explanation of what a deduction is, and what they are composed of, will necessarily lead us through the whole of his theory. What, then, is a deduction? Aristotle says:

A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from those supposed results of necessity because of their being so. (Prior Analytics I.2, 24b18-20)

Each of the “things supposed” is a premise of the argument, and what “results of necessity” is the conclusion.

The core of this definition is the notion of “resulting of necessity.” This corresponds to a modern notion of logical consequence: X results of necessity from Y and Z if it would be impossible for X to be false when Y and Z are true. We could therefore take this to be a general definition of “valid argument”.


===========================
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_... Following the developments in formal logic with symbolic logic in the late nineteenth century and mathematical logic in the twentieth, topics traditionally treated by logic not being part of formal logic have tended to be termed either philosophy of logic or philosophical logic if no longer simply logic.

Compared to the history of logic the demarcation between philosophy of logic and philosophical logic is of recent coinage and not always entirely clear. Characterisations include
* Philosophy of logic is the arena of philosophy devoted to examining the scope and nature of logic.
* Philosophy of logic is the investigation, critical analysis and intellectual reflection on issues arising in logic. The field is considered to be distinct from philosophical logic.
* Philosophical logic is the branch of study that concerns questions about reference, predication, identity, truth, quantification, existence, entailment, modality, and necessity.
* Philosophical logic is the application of formal logical techniques to philosophical problems.

“It’s logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality.” Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification. Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various corollaries. If logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is inapplicable to reality. If so, then: a. things are not what they are; b. things can be and not be at the same time, in the same respect, i.e., reality is made up of contradictions. If so, by what means did anyone discover it? By illogical means. (This last is for sure.) The purpose of that notion is crudely obvious. Its actual meaning is not: “Logic has nothing to do with reality,” but: “I, the speaker, have nothing to do with logic (or with reality).” When people use that catch phrase, they mean either: “It’s logical, but I don’t choose to be logical” or: “It’s logical, but people are not logical, they don’t think—and I intend to pander to their irrationality.” Philosophy Who Needs It?

Again with the "logic is rigid" point. When speaking of literary topics, like debate and philosophy and such, logic is NOT rigid. If you are going to continue with this assertion, you will need to actually prove it.

The problem is one of mixed-metaphors. The "rules of logic" behind most mathematical equations are not the same as the "rules of logic" behind expressions of ideas. I pointed that out with my A = B post. You cannot mix the two styles of logic. Just because the word is the same does not mean it has the same meaning.

Even given that, it is possible for a geometry question/problem to have multiple, correct, answers. From a "high level," even mathematics as a whole has issues with pure logic. What other vector space of rules would be seen as "complete and rational," if one set of answers was called "irrational" and another set of answers was called "imaginary"?

Rationalism is a type of reasoning. I do not know of a style of philosophy with does not somehow start with an "arbitrary" premise, and then, using certain types of logical progression, follow that through to a conclusion. The differences come in the methodology of applying "rules of logic" to the progression of ideas.

Black slavery was, in fact, based on empiricism. These black tribes in central Africa were seen as the "missing link" between apes and man. They were not, by strict observation, "human." So they could legitimately be domesticated just like any other animal, and put into forced slavery. The "observations" included very real studies on how they lived, their limited vocabulary, etc. Using strictly empirical observations, black slavery was not the same as white slavery.

Today, knowing what we know, this whole argument sounds ludicrous. We cannot believe that people were ever fooled into believing that was the case. We just have an *innate* understanding that forced enslavement of other humans is wrong -- but that now brings us to rationalism and directly away from empiricism. The more the white humans saw the black slaves, the more they realized these were humans of a different racial background as opposed to sub-human animals, and the more the innate understanding that forced slavery is wrong took over.

Getting back to your comment, I could start with the premise of "what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people" and NOT end up with "totalitarianism." It was my search for that answer which brought me to become a libertarian. So *MY* rational thought processes took me 180-degrees away from a totalitarian government. Indeed, I'm thinking that only the liberals/marxists/socialists will take that route.