Regression of Ignorance

William Rea said:

I will challenge you to find an instance of where I said that.

Click to expand...

Sure. This is from the first post in this thread:

William Rea said:

If your argument for anything supernatural is based upon human ignorance of the true nature of reality then, you have conceded the argument.

Click to expand...

If human beings are totally ignorant of something, it obviously follows that science has no explanations of that thing. From there, it's a straightforward translation into sentential calculus:

If...human ignorance of X (science cannot explain X), then...conceded argument (Y).

More generally, you seem to admit that there are things science does not explain, but also take for granted that we should default to some kind of materialist or skeptical view, and that we should impose various restrictions on what we admit for consideration, without positing any independent reason for doing so. Pretty hard to see how you're not arguing just the way you criticise, but feel free to explain. In any case, the example from your first post in this thread is pretty clearly an example of the kind of reasoning you otherwise disparage.

RAMOSS said:

When you come up with something more than fraud and wishful thinking, do publish it.

Click to expand...

Pyramid power? That takes me back to the 1970's, a time when pseudo-scientific pyramid power nonsense was rife.



It is amusing to read and compare the many books published on pyramid power during the 1970s, since they so perfectly display the symptoms of pseudoscience. Here are some of the features that are universally found. ↑ There are meaningless and arbitrary rules and rituals specified for getting the pyramid to “work.” Each book has different rules that often directly contradict those in other books— for example, align the sides of the pyramid with magnetic north— no, align the sides with geographic north. Keep the pyramid away from electronic equipment. No, always place the pyramid close to or on top of electronic equipment. The rules for using the pyramid are actually parts of a magic ritual. ↑ There are no controls, comparisons or checks. Don't place some cookies in a cookie jar and others in a pyramid and compare their freshness over time. Just convince yourself that the cookies from the pyramid were better, somehow, than the cookies you had before you bought your pyramid. ↑ There are no quantitiative measurements, only subjective judgements. Aren't you getting more shaves from the blade kept under the pyramid you bought? No need to examine the blade under a microscope each day and take a reference photo! ↑ There is no underlying physical phenomenon uncovered or even of interest. If the pyramid were “focussing” something, as the books vaguely claim, then it is the something we should be studying, not the pyramid. ↑ The claims are not consistent with any physical process. Suppose the pyramid preserves organic matter, as the cookie and fruit and mummy claims indicate— but the reason a razor blade shaves less and less well with each use is that layers of skin cells and soap residue build up on the edge and do not rinse off. If the pyramid acted to preserve this organic matter, it should make the blade duller, not sharper! ↑ The pyramid shape is what is important. Pyramids can be made of any material from wood to brass to cardboard to coathanger wire. But the superficial shape of things is a concern only of voodoo, never of reality. Pyramid power claims have the classic form of subjective validation; users get the vague, unquantifiable result they are told to expect.

https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~coker2/index.files/pyracrystal.shtml

Classic stepping on to the regression of ignorance and well spotted by the first responder.

Angel said:

Like all strict materialists, you reduce reality from an EXPERIENCE to a MECHANISM.
You don't know what REALITY is, David. No one does. Your absolute certainty that reality is only physical is your reduction and your error in judgment all at once.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the kind of argument pattern that fits into the regression, the poster has instantly destroyed their own argument with ignorance.

William Rea said:

As an analogue to the 'unmoved mover' response that it is, 'turtles all the way down', it is also, 'ignorance all the way down'.

If your argument for anything supernatural is based upon human ignorance of the true nature of reality then, you have conceded the argument.

Click to expand...

That there are gaps in knowledge certainly does not justify inserting a god to fill them. It's better to just admit there are gaps and seek to fill them with knowledge brought about by proposing theories which are supported by evidence.

Supernatural is literally "outside of nature".

Which ultimate means "outside of reality".

Which is the long way of saying "not real".

I believe the "not real" is real. <-- It's just a contradiction. That they have no evidence, or want evidence, or read a history book, or feel something, or it makes them feel good. None of that is relevant.

You either accept or you reject contradictions, which means you're logical, or illogical. You don't have to be ONLY logical like Spock tried to be...we have emotions too. But we don't use emotions to change a car tire (well, expletives not withstanding). Similarly emotion's aren't relevant to identifying the truth of a matter of logic.