On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues

[Brian Smith 0]

The relationship certainly is a fact. The question is, is it always relevant or on-topic to discuss a particular fact. I don't think it is relevant to discuss the life cycle of earthworms on a thread about Einstein and I don't think it is relevant to discuss logical fallacies on a thread about politics.

So - to use a previously used example: if a member opened a new topic about the cause of this morning's volcanic eruption, and he stated:

I saw a comet last night

The volcano erupted this morning

Therefore the comet caused the eruption

It is your claim that it would be 'irrelevant' (and disruptive, etc as has been stated in other posts) to post in that thread the fact that it is a logical fallacy to claim the order of the events is the cause of the events? It would be 'irrelevant' even though it would result in having to change the premises (ie the facts which are relevant to the discussion?)

[Paul's Here 0]

--------------

Put simply, in this context the "non-arbitrary" is 'true' or 'false'. And that means when one says a claim is either 'non-arbitrary' or 'arbitrary' (non-A or A), one is saying a claim is either true or false (non-A), or it is arbitrary (A).

As such, when trying to identify a claim's connection to reality, to suggest it can only be 'true' or 'false' is to suggest it can only be "non-arbitrary". It is to suggest the alternative - "arbitrary" - does not exist. It is to suggest there is no A but only the non-As. That is a false alternative.

The only claim being made it that the conclusion corresponds to reality or it doesn't and not which of the two alternatives applies.

Exactly. The arbitrary has been dropped as the alternative to the non-arbitrary.

This rather interesting response by Brian is a good example of what happens when one puts the cart before the horse. In other words, we have here the fallacy of the stolen concept in about as explicitly put manner as I have ever seen. Brian is putting 'arbitrary' as the primary relationship between facts and claims, thus making true and false subcategories of 'non-arbitrary.'

How does one identify a relationship as arbitrary before identifying the relationships of true and false? I don't know. Perhaps this fallacy can be explained by someone.

[Brian Smith 0]

I don't think it is relevant to discuss logical fallacies on a thread about politics.

The claim appears to be that it is 'irrelevant' to apply principles of logic in a discussion whose subject is anything other than epistemology.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

As such, when trying to identify a claim's connection to reality, to suggest it can only be 'true' or 'false' is to suggest it can only be "non-arbitrary". It is to suggest the alternative - "arbitrary" - does not exist. It is to suggest there is no A but only the non-As. That is a false alternative.

This confuses two different, non-mutually exclusive characteristics of a statement.

Arbitrary/Non-arbitrary pertains to the presence or absence of evidence for a statement. (A or not-A)

True/False pertains to a statement's correspondence or non-correspondence to reality. (C or not-C)

Thus, a statement can be in any of these four combinations:

                 |  True          |  False
----------------------------------------------------
Arbitrary        |  A and  C      |  A and not-C
----------------------------------------------------
Non-Arbitrary    |  not-A and C   |  not-A and not-C
----------------------------------------------------

The only claim being made it that the conclusion corresponds to reality or it doesn't and not which of the two alternatives applies.

Exactly. The arbitrary has been dropped as the alternative to the non-arbitrary.

The arbitrary is not an alternative to true/false because a statement's evidentiary status is a separate issue from its correspondence to reality.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

So - to use a previously used example: if a member opened a new topic about the cause of this morning's volcanic eruption, and he stated:

I saw a comet last night

The volcano erupted this morning

Therefore the comet caused the eruption

It is your claim that it would be 'irrelevant' (and disruptive, etc as has been stated in other posts) to post in that thread the fact that it is a logical fallacy to claim the order of the events is the cause of the events? It would be 'irrelevant' even though it would result in having to change the premises (ie the facts which are relevant to the discussion?)

Rather than bring up an issue of logical fallacies on the original thread, the way to address the issue of proper causal inference in this context would be to ask "How did the comet cause the eruption?"

You can also start a new thread about post hoc fallacies on the Metaphysics and Epistemology forum quoting the comet/volcano post as an example.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I don't think it is relevant to discuss logical fallacies on a thread about politics.

The claim appears to be that it is 'irrelevant' to apply principles of logic in a discussion whose subject is anything other than epistemology.

Applying logic and discussing logical fallacies are not the same thing. In fact, I have seen some people who do not apply logic when they are discussing logical fallacies.

[Brian Smith 0]

Arbitrary/Non-arbitrary pertains to the presence or absence of evidence for a statement. (A or not-A)

True/False pertains to a statement's correspondence or non-correspondence to reality. (C or not-C)

Thus, a statement can be in any of these four combinations:

                 |  True          |  False
----------------------------------------------------
Arbitrary        |  A and  C      |  A and not-C
----------------------------------------------------
Non-Arbitrary    |  not-A and C   |  not-A and not-C
----------------------------------------------------

The above is false. There is no such thing as an 'Arbitrary and True' statement or 'Arbitrary and False' statement. The arbitrary can neither be true nor false. Only that which has a connection to reality can be identified as either true or false. In other words, the terms are indeed mutually exclusive.

Put simply, the nature of the terms is as I have identified them True and False are the 'non-A'. Arbitrary is the 'A'

[Paul's Here 0]

---------

Put simply, the nature of the terms is as I have identified them True and False are the 'non-A'. Arbitrary is the 'A'

Stolen concept, once again.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

Now, when speaking of the relationship between a claim and reality, in accord with the Law of Excluded Middle either a claim is connected to reality or it is not connected to reality. In other words, a claim is either "non-arbitrary" or "arbitrary" (non-A or A).

-----------

This is false. when speaking about the relationship between a claim and reality, one must first establish the relationship in accord with the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradiction. Once that is done, then one applies the Law of Excluded Middle to eliminate the assumption of a thing could be other than A or non-A. That which is in accord with the Law of Non-Contradiction is true; that which denies the Law of Non-Contradiction is false. Once that relationship is established, then one brings in the Law of Excluded Middle to deny that there is an alternative to true or false. The arbitrary is neither true or false. To turn around and create a category of non-arbitrary to which true and false are part of, is the classical example of denying the roots of a concept in order to use the concept. The argument is also begging the question: he is using the point in question as part of the argument. Brian's method is, in essence, the logical fallacy of the stolen concept.

[Carlos 0]

If the premises of an argument are not true, then the conclusion is UNSUPPORTED

If the argument is not logically valid, then the conclusion is UNSUPPORTED

This does not follow.

False premises prove nothing about the conclusion: true, false, arbitrary, non-arbitrary. The conclusion can still be supported by a single true premise offered in the argument or be self-supported by direct perception without the need of any argument at all.

An invalid argument proves nothing about the conclusion: true, false, arbitrary, non-arbitrary. The conclusion can still be supported by the premises offered in the argument or be self-supported by direct perception without the need of any argument at all.

There are great examples of this in Physics:

A major revolution in Classical Mechanics was the introduction of Lagrangian Dynamics, which was based on certain energy minimalizing principles that originated from Theological arguments!

Also, a lot of Maxwell's successful work in Electrodynamics was done so based on the premise that an Ether (the physical medium of space) exists, when in fact it doesn't. Yet in the end, Maxwell certainly got everything right!

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Arbitrary/Non-arbitrary pertains to the presence or absence of evidence for a statement. (A or not-A)

True/False pertains to a statement's correspondence or non-correspondence to reality. (C or not-C)

Thus, a statement can be in any of these four combinations:

                 |  True          |  False
----------------------------------------------------
Arbitrary        |  A and  C      |  A and not-C
----------------------------------------------------
Non-Arbitrary    |  not-A and C   |  not-A and not-C
----------------------------------------------------

The above is false. There is no such thing as an 'Arbitrary and True' statement or 'Arbitrary and False' statement. The arbitrary can neither be true nor false. Only that which has a connection to reality can be identified as either true or false. In other words, the terms are indeed mutually exclusive.

Put simply, the nature of the terms is as I have identified them True and False are the 'non-A'. Arbitrary is the 'A'

You are just declaring this is the case, but there are facts that contradict your statement.

A person can make a statement that I know is arbitrary because he presents it without evidence or even any understanding of what he is talking about. I can also know that his statement is true because of evidence that I have. Thus, contrary to your claim, his statement is both arbitrary and true.

[Brian Smith 0]

Put simply, the nature of the terms is as I have identified them True and False are the 'non-A'. Arbitrary is the 'A'

You are just declaring this is the case, but there are facts that contradict your statement.

No, there are not.

A person can make a statement that I know is arbitrary because he presents it without evidence or even any understanding of what he is talking about. I can also know that his statement is true because of evidence that I have. Thus, contrary to your claim, his statement is both arbitrary and true.

True, false, and arbitrary are identifications of something about a person's idea. Specifically, they are identifications about whether a person's idea is connected to fact - to reality.

In the above example, it is established that YOU can positively connect YOUR idea to fact - to reality.

In the above example, it is established that SOMEONE ELSE cannot connect HIS idea to fact -to reality.

In other words, that which is being identified in each instance is different: YOUR idea and HIS idea (that they pertain to the same supposed facts does not change this fact).

YOUR idea is true because of the nature of its relation to reality.

HIS idea is arbitrary because of the nature of its relation to reality

It would be false to claim that YOUR idea is both 'arbitrary and true'

It would be false to claim that HIS idea is both 'arbitrary and true'.

The same person's idea cannot be both connected to reality and not connected to reality. The same person's idea cannot be both A and non-A.

Put simply, to claim that an idea can be both 'true and arbitrary' or 'false and arbitrary' is to drop the context of the consciousness to whom the idea belongs. It is to make a floating abstraction of the idea by divorcing it from any particular consciousness. That is a logical fallacy (and serves as the perfect demonstration as to why it is crucially important to actually link a speaker with his idea - ie "Bob's argument" "her assertion", "you're wrong" etc).

I have seen some people who do not apply logic when they are discussing logical fallacies.

Unfortunately, so have I. And I think it goes to the heart of this thread. When one or two fallacies are not understood, explaining them can be important to the discussion of a subject and can be resolved fairly easily. But when fundamentals of logic are not grasped, then no rational discussion of a subject will be possible. Regardless of the subject, the discussions will necessarily become about logic (just as disagreements on political subjects which are the result of not grasping fundamentals of ethics will ultimately become discussions about ethics).

Given the above, at this point I would simply like to state my appreciation for this thread - including that it was allowed to continue for so long. While it did not serve the purpose I had hoped, it has certainly helped me resolve a few long-standing questions here - and has proved useful to me in an entirely different context (though that is merely a happy coincidence).

Therefore, I shall be taking my leave from this (and related) conversation.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

A person can make a statement that I know is arbitrary because he presents it without evidence or even any understanding of what he is talking about. I can also know that his statement is true because of evidence that I have. Thus, contrary to your claim, his statement is both arbitrary and true.

True, false, and arbitrary are identifications of something about a person's idea. Specifically, they are identifications about whether a person's idea is connected to fact - to reality.

"Identifications about whether a person's idea is connected to fact" is an imprecise characterization that blurs the actual distinction between true/false and arbitrary/non-arbitrary.

True/false pertains to whether an idea corresponds or fails to correspond to reality.

Arbitrary/non-arbitrary pertains to whether there is or is not evidence to support an idea.

In the above example, it is established that YOU can positively connect YOUR idea to fact - to reality.

In the above example, it is established that SOMEONE ELSE cannot connect HIS idea to fact -to reality.

In my example, I was referring to the same statement about reality.

I was referring to the statement's relation to reality (true). I was also referring to its relationship to his consciousness (arbitrary) and my consciousness (proven).

True/false and arbitrary/non-arbitrary are two different characteristics of the statement. To mush them all together as "identifications about whether a person's idea is connected to fact" ignores that difference and results in false conclusions.

[Brian Smith 0]

I must disagree with your ideas but, before leaving the conversation, I did want to thank you for expressing them.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

True, false, and arbitrary are identifications of something about a person's idea. Specifically, they are identifications about whether a person's idea is connected to fact - to reality.

In the above example, it is established that YOU can positively connect YOUR idea to fact - to reality.

In the above example, it is established that SOMEONE ELSE cannot connect HIS idea to fact -to reality.

In other words, that which is being identified in each instance is different: YOUR idea and HIS idea (that they pertain to the same supposed facts does not change this fact).

YOUR idea is true because of the nature of its relation to reality.

HIS idea is arbitrary because of the nature of its relation to reality

It would be false to claim that YOUR idea is both 'arbitrary and true'

It would be false to claim that HIS idea is both 'arbitrary and true'.

The same person's idea cannot be both connected to reality and not connected to reality. The same person's idea cannot be both A and non-A.

Put simply, to claim that an idea can be both 'true and arbitrary' or 'false and arbitrary' is to drop the context of the consciousness to whom the idea belongs. It is to make a floating abstraction of the idea by divorcing it from any particular consciousness. That is a logical fallacy (and serves as the perfect demonstration as to why it is crucially important to actually link a speaker with his idea - ie "Bob's argument" "her assertion", "you're wrong" etc).

Since Brian has concluded his participation in this thread, I would like to conclude with some comments. I also have learned quite a bit about logical reasoning, and I appreciate the discussion of all participants.

I think the above views represents a subjectivist view of truth (and I would think this whether the arguments were submitted by Brian or anyone else). To claim that "your idea is true" but "his idea is arbitrary" is simply an incorrect view of truth. Both ideas are the same idea if "they pertain to" similar "supposed facts." "[T]hat which is being identified in each instance is different" is incorrect. Ideas and arguments and evidence stand on their own as objective statements concerning the nature of reality. Who says them is irrelevant to truth. And, as we've seen, an invalid argument is not proof of the truth or falsity of the idea. Who said what may be of biographical interest when discussing ideas, or if the argument is about who said something it may be pertinent. (I have no idea what "connected to fact" or "connected to reality" really means. If an arbitrary statement had no connection to reality, how would one identify it as arbitrary? Would the assertion "That is an arbitrary statement" have any truth if there was no connection to reality?)

I would like to conclude with quotes from Ayn Rand that put the issues within the proper context when judging truth and inference.

The truth or falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions.

------------------------

Every truth about a given existent(s) reduces, in basic pattern, to: "X is: one or more of the things which it is." The predicate in such a case states some characteristic(s) of the subject; but since it is a characteristic of the subject, the concept(s) designating the subject in fact includes the predicate from the outset. If one wishes to use the term "tautology" in this context, then all truths are "tautological." (And, by the same reasoning, all falsehoods are self-contradictions.)

When making a statement about an existent, one has, ultimately, only two alternatives: "X (which means X, the existent, including all its characteristics) is what it is"—or: "X is not what it is." The choice between truth and falsehood is the choice between "tautology" (in the sense explained) and self-contradiction.

In the realm of propositions, there is only one basic epistemological distinction: truth vs. falsehood, and only one fundamental issue: By what method is truth discovered and validated? To plant a dichotomy at the base of human knowledge—to claim that there are opposite methods of validation and opposite types of truth [as do the advocates of the "analytic-synthetic" dichotomy] is a procedure without grounds or justification.

--------------------

The existence of human volition cannot be used to justify the theory that there is a dichotomy of propositions or of truths. Propositions about metaphysical facts, and propositions about man-made facts, do not have different characteristics qua propositions. They differ merely in their subject matter, but then so do the propositions of astronomy and of immunology. Truths about metaphysical and about man-made facts are learned and validated by the same process: by observation; and, qua truths, both are equally necessary. Some facts are not necessary, but all truths are.

-------------------------

[Consider the catch phrase:] "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." What is the meaning of the concept "truth"? Truth is the recognition of reality. (This is known as the correspondence theory of truth.) The same thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time and in the same respect. That catch phrase, therefore, means: a. that the Law of Identity is invalid; b. that there is no objectively perceivable reality, only some indeterminate flux which is nothing in particular, i.e., that there is no reality (in which case, there can be no such thing as truth); or c. that the two debaters perceive two different universes (in which case, no debate is possible). (The purpose of the catch phrase is the destruction of objectivity.)

[PhilO 0]

[...] To claim that "your idea is true" but "his idea is arbitrary" is simply an incorrect view of truth. Both ideas are the same idea if "they pertain to" similar "supposed facts." [...]

A fact is an actual metaphysical existent that exists independently of anyone's mind.

Truth on the other hand is a relational concept: between consciousness and facts. A consciousness that correctly apprehends facts, can be said to know the truth of the fact.

Ask yourself if there would be any "truths" if there were no beings with minds alive. (I say the answer is no.) There would be all of the existents of reality, a universe of facts, with no mind to apprehend their existence and to form truths.

In other words, statements do not have "intrinsic" truths; nor do minds disconnected from facts have "subjective" truths; but a mind in touch with existence can have objective truth. (This is, as I understand it, exactly the Objectivist theory of truth, as well as the two historically popular but incorrect alternative views.)

That does not mean that statements that form part of a supposed chain of reasoning cannot be isolated and considered individually by whoever chooses to do so - even if ultimately the reasoning is faulty or simply arbitrary. However, it makes sense to consider the source, and somebody known to be as rigorously logical as Ayn Rand is clearly incomparably more profitable reading than an astrologer who might utter true statements occasionally.

It *is* wrong to equate a statement with the content of a person's mind. There are actually multiple components at work:

1) Facts (reality)

2) A mind (consciousness)

3) Truths stored in a mind (subconscious)

4) A statement (or a proposition), which is a physically existing fact that is independent both of the other facts to which it connects (#1), and of a mind (#2/3). There are different types of statements - verbal ones are transient if spoken; can become more permanent if recorded; written on paper; stored as bits on a hard drive; etc. The common denominator is that they are an encoded form of human thought, conveyed in a physical manner that is independent of a consciousness. In order that truths in a mind can be reliably stored for future use, it is necessary to use such an external recorded form.

To use a more concretized example, a road map is a kind of statement: a physically existing thing that makes a statement, objectively understandable to some human minds, about facts regarding the geography of the earth. "The map is not the terrain" is exactly true; and it's equally true that "consciousness is not the map". The map serves as a physical embodiment of human knowledge whose meaning can be objectively grasped by certain minds. One mind can transfer the truths that he knows about earth's geography onto a map that could be used to convey those truths to another mind long after the original mind is dead and gone. That's because the map *is* a physically separate thing independent of the mind that created it.

Now if somebody misinterprets the map's meaning, or has blurry vision and they cannot accurately read the map, etc., then their consciousness has not correctly used the map to grasp the facts it conveys about the earth's geography. That does not therefore mean that the map is useless and should be burned; it does not mean that the map is inaccurate because of that problem; etc. It means that particular person hasn't correctly used the map.

I think many of the arguments in this and other related threads boil down to confusions over conflating, or mis-relating, various permutations of 1,2/3, and 4. An accurate map does not become useless simply because a particular consciousness doesn't get it. A wildly inaccurate map, drawn with random lines, is useless to any consciousness (that would be an arbitrary map.) A map would no longer have use or meaning if there were no longer anyone to read it. And so forth.

[Paul's Here 0]

------------

That does not mean that statements that form part of a supposed chain of reasoning cannot be isolated and considered individually by whoever chooses to do so - even if ultimately the reasoning is faulty or simply arbitrary. However, it makes sense to consider the source, and somebody known to be as rigorously logical as Ayn Rand is clearly incomparably more profitable reading than an astrologer who might utter true statements occasionally.

Yes, but that is not because of who makes the statement but because of what is being said. The "who" provides a context for the "what" based upon previous knowledge of what was stated. But the truth does not depend upon who states it. I am not comparing someone who consistently lies and someone who isn't known to lie. That is not the context here.

It *is* wrong to equate a statement with the content of a person's mind. There are actually multiple components at work:

1) Facts (reality)

2) A mind (consciousness)

3) Truths stored in a mind (subconscious)

4) A statement (or a proposition), which is a physically existing fact that is independent both of the other facts to which it connects (#1), and of a mind (#2/3). There are different types of statements - verbal ones are transient if spoken; can become more permanent if recorded; written on paper; stored as bits on a hard drive; etc. The common denominator is that they are an encoded form of human thought, conveyed in a physical manner that is independent of a consciousness. In order that truths in a mind can be reliably stored for future use, it is necessary to use such an external recorded form.

------------

I agree with just about everything you've stated, but I was focusing on the issue of an idea's correspondence to reality apart from who holds it, given that it must be held by some consciousness. This does not imply that there is a truth independent of consciousness. Let's focus on this subject here. This thread was talking about an idea: replying to On-Topic and Off-Topic Issues. There are many ways to grasp this idea and many ways to approach it. And this thread has demonstrated there are many ways to answer it. But does each of us have a different idea of the topic if they pertain to similar facts? I think not.

For example, I'm not a physicist. For me to make a statement about the quantum energy levels of some particle that I have no knowledge about would indeed be arbitrary. But is my idea of energy different from the physicists idea of energy? He may have more extensive and intensive knowledge of particulars, but I would hold that we have the same idea of energy, if it pertains to similar facts. Recognition of this is essential to concept formation. I may grasp 'furniture' by observing dinning room tables, couches and desks. You may grasp 'furniture' by observing sofas, coffee tables, and book cases. We both have the same concept, the same idea, even if one of us or both don't know how we arrived at the idea and can't explain it. The Pope cannot rationally defend his idea of everlasting life, but is your idea of it different than his because you know that there is nothing in reality that corresponds to his idea? Does the truth of everlasting life depend upon who says it? Is the Pope's idea arbitrary but your idea true? Or is it simply proper to say "The idea of everlasting life is arbitrary?" Or is also it proper to say, "Considering everything I know about living beings and life, the idea of everlasting life is self-contradictory, and therefore, false?" In each case, the statements are true for you and the Pope.

[Arnold 0]

A fact is an actual metaphysical existent that exists independently of anyone's mind.

Truth on the other hand is a relational concept: between consciousness and facts. A consciousness that correctly apprehends facts, can be said to know the truth of the fact.

Ask yourself if there would be any "truths" if there were no beings with minds alive. (I say the answer is no.) There would be all of the existents of reality, a universe of facts, with no mind to apprehend their existence and to form truths.

In other words, statements do not have "intrinsic" truths; nor do minds disconnected from facts have "subjective" truths; but a mind in touch with existence can have objective truth. (This is, as I understand it, exactly the Objectivist theory of truth, as well as the two historically popular but incorrect alternative views.)

I agree with this. The earth circled the sun (fact) long before the recognition of this fact (truth) took place. IOW many thousands of years ago, this was true for no one, because no one recognized the fact.

In this sense, someone who does recognize a fact (his idea is true to reality), knows the truth in that regard. It may not be recognized by the person next to him, and hence the truth has not dawned on that person next to him. While facts are facts for everyone, truth is only for those who identify those facts.