tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post489838856300410526..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Petersen’s Failed Attempts to Refute Leonard Peikoff: Objection 2Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-20200461073391161472014-10-15T04:46:51.519-04:002014-10-15T04:46:51.519-04:00Thanks for sharing the link to this video, Johan. ...Thanks for sharing the link to this video, Johan. I think Ozy’s right in everything he says here. It’s well-informed and it debunks several of the Clarkian’s distinctive attacks on the human mind.<br /><br />I found the following points in Ozy’s talk quite useful:<br /><br />1. The fallacy of affirming the consequent is a *formal* fallacy – i.e., having to do with the *structure* of an inference;<br /><br />2. The fallacy of affirming the consequent is a violation of <i>modus ponens</i> - which is a rule of *deductive* logic (as opposed to *inductive* logic);<br /><br />3. A valid argument does not imply a *sound* argument; this implies that logic alone is not enough: logic is the structure of inference, but what’s also needed is <i>content</i>, and we get that through *reason* (something Petersen rejects);<br /><br />4. Since the fallacy of affirming the consequent is a *formal* fallacy, it can be avoided by restructuring the argument, specifically by reversing the antecedent and the consequent;<br /><br />5. The rule known as <i>modus tollens</i> is used to test a hypothesis for falsifiability, not to prove it.<br /> <br />In my final entry in this series (which hopefully I’ll be able to post tomorrow), I’ll bring out some more problems for Clarkians (since they reject induction altogether).<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-38160421194332185992014-10-15T02:26:18.844-04:002014-10-15T02:26:18.844-04:00Well, Mr Petersen thinks (as Mr Segers) that all o...Well, Mr Petersen thinks (as Mr Segers) that all of science is false since the scientific method commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. <br /><br />Ozy did a video about it: http://youtu.be/PCHNAjEYaFol_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47885843207166891772014-10-14T23:15:02.169-04:002014-10-14T23:15:02.169-04:00"If there must be an explanation for every pr..."If there must be an explanation for every proposition, then Bahnsen Burner must explain how knowledge cannot come from anything other than by mental activity."<br /><br />It's very simple: knowing is a *type* of activity. What performs this activity? The mind performs it. If the mind is not functioning, there's no knowing happening, thus no knowledge to speak of.<br /><br />Again, you can see why I'm not impressed with this guy. He seems to have the impression that waving a bunch of words around and challenging people to "demonstrate" things (while never demonstrating his god-belief claims) somehow qualifies him as an expert on epistemology. But what does he offer? Just more deep chasms of vacuousness.<br /><br />Another post in this series will be published shortly.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42653610254976697402014-10-14T23:01:23.755-04:002014-10-14T23:01:23.755-04:00Jason's mental midgetry is astounding
I quote
...Jason's mental midgetry is astounding<br />I quote<br /><br />Notice that Bethrick’s criteria that all knowledge must come from mental activity. Such a conclusion cannot be came to without committing the fallacy of asserting the consequent. If there must be an explanation for every proposition, then Bahnsen Burner must explain how knowledge cannot come from anything other than by mental activity.<br /><br />There is no way to empirically demonstrate that all knowledge must necessarily come from ourselves. If Bethrick is able to provide such a demonstration, he is welcome to try. One could argue that mental activity is detectable by computers that are designed to measure brain activity, but such an assertion assumes that brain activity is the only explanation for what is being seen on the machine. This assumes that the consequent can only be explained by one possibility, whereas there are multiple reasons why activity may be displayed on the device. In this case, if Bethrick happened to take an empirical approach to demonstrating that all knowledge comes from mental activity that is performed by the individual, he would “know without knowing how he knows.”fishbonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08649258032823601071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-78776537561126158622014-10-14T05:02:39.040-04:002014-10-14T05:02:39.040-04:00Great!Great!l_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.com