Someone asked me what I meant by "consistency counts in philosophy:

[fromderinside]

I can't find my quote so I have to take the request as general. I don't mean as Hitchens wrote: “Anybody doing any kind of science should abandon his or her faith if they wish to become a philosophically consistent scientist.” since I believe persons have adequately been demonstrated capable of holding faith in two or more competing, even opposing views.

So while "it is consistent for a scientist that one’s scientific knowledge is attained through observation, experimentation, and agreement among practitioners"*. It is also consistent in the same one's "Religious knowledge comes from dogma, authority, and personal revelation."* Those two view are opposite, yet one can consistently hold each view when they are limited on respective domains. Moving from one realm to the other is as simple as changing methodological hats.

Inconsistency arises when one applies religious criteria to scientific problems and vica versa holds scientific criteria for religious problems. How the human is capable of doing that seems fairly obvious since, based on surveys, about 40% of scientists are also religious and sufficient operations operations can be found suitable for either pursuit. This last element is from a third set probabilistic reasoning.

Here is the Hitchens article: Why evolution is true https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/what-is-the-sweating-professor-trying-to-say/

So is that what you asked Speakpigeon? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

*^_Hitchens

 

[Speakpigeon]

???

Right, I'm not sure this is going to help at all!

And you're putting our romance out there in the open!

Anyway, here is our private conversation, whole, if that can help.

Although I seriously doubt that...

_________________________________

So, first, I had an exchange with bilby:

I am not assuming anything.
We can imagine the choice is free.
Or we can say the universe planned it at it's inception.
Take your pick.

Either this is a false dichotomy fallacy; or you are a moron.
Take your pick.

That's a false dichotomy.
EB

Indeed. It's intended as an example of such.

I thought so.
So, it's a true false dichotomy.
EB

Then fromderinside sent me a private message referring to my last post in this exchange with bilby:

Thread: There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.
consistency counts in philosophy. Sad./sorry

This led, finally, to this short exchange between fromderinside and me:

What do you mean "consistency counts in philosophy".
Meaning comes first, you know.
Pleased I'm still alive?
Me too.
EB

Well I don't mean consistency in stepping out in front of traffic.

That's what I don't do. I wouldn't be still alive if I did that sort of things.

Get the meaning?

No, that why I asked.
But do as you please.

I hope you do. Can't have a baren philosophy thread without meaning can we?
FDI

Exactly.
So, what did you meant, consistency?
And we're not going to have a private thread all to ourselves, so please be quick about it!
EB

______________________________

That's all, folks.

Enjoy.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

As usual I'm sniffing in all the wrong places. Thanks for the head bump Speakpigeon. Recollection complete.

So, the laundry isn't exactly dirty here. Consistency counts as you can see in my disagreement with Hitchens. I think he muddled the waters by implying consitency had to do with a philosopher of singular personality while he was defending evolution vs religion.

Obviously I agree scientifically that religion has nothing to say about evolution.

However by using a singular attribute model Hitchens misses a primary attribute of human reasoning, its multichannel capacity. We are social animals needing to be fit in reality and fit in company which are situations often at odds with the other in any coherent logical sense. Here it counts that one be consistent in applying proper criteria to each categorical study or discipline. So neither is consistency a singular thing in philosophy neither is consistency between micro and macro world statements applicable to existence of of will. I think bilby did an masterful job of pointing out obstacles in transferring relations of phenomena in micro to macro physics.

One need not be an atheist to pursue objective studies. And on need not forego objective study if one is a theist. Many compartments here. All that need be clear are consistently applied criteria for each.

My response though was intended to support the stipulation behind your false dichotomy statements that untermenche didn't make a case for free will 'argument' by saying

I am not assuming anything.
We can imagine the choice is free.
Or we can say the universe planned it at it's inception.
Take your pick.

assuming, imagining, saying, picking does not a coherent statement make. Consistency counts in philosophy.

So let the chewing begain again./not meant to lead to another whataboutthis.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Alright, at least I can say I agree with you against Hitchens, and for apparently exactly the reasons you give.

I also see human beings are vastly more different from each other than is usually assumed and I also believe that we can use this variety and originality to keep us alive, as individuals, as societies, as well as a species. Hitchens strikes me as just a little bit on the wrong side of intolerance and narrow-mindedness. He talks a lot about evolution but I think he is a dead end in that respect.

Of course, consistency matters in philosophy as it does in any area of intellectual enquiry. But I believe there's no difficulty in pursuing parallel enquiries inconsistent with each other. Maybe it's not for everyone's taste but it works if you can manage it.

What may be inconsistent, then, has more to do with temperament. Like Hitchens, narrow-minded people will feel more comfortable dealing only with mutually consistent lines of inquiry. And, yes, many religious people are narrow-minded, but only the narrow-minded among atheists will convince themselves that religious people can only be narrow-mindedly religious and therefore unfit for doing any kind of science.

______________________

That being said, you somewhat over-interpreted my comment. The stipulation behind my true false dichotomy statements wasn't to invalidate a particular argument about free will but to agree with the suggestion that somebody was in any case a moron.


And sorry for the bump.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

And sorry for the bump.
EB

Yeah, well, be careful ..... thanks.