Sunday, July 08, 2007

Three maxims: A cord of three strands

1. Follow the argument, wherever it leads.
2. Accept the truth, whatever it is.
3. Defend the truth, whatever the cost.

17 comments:

ChrisB said...

I've never seen something so short with such potential for offending just about everybody I know. You have quite a gift :)

MarkO said...

To chrisb:

How is that offensive?

Paul D. Adams said...

Maybe you should meet more people.

Smokey said...

Why not follow the evidence, Doug?

Why not realize that people who quote others instead of citing the evidence are immoral people?

Douglas Groothuis said...

I have no idea what smokey is talking about.

Paul D. Adams said...

A [suggested] fourth maxim...
4. Ask others if they believe their disagreements with maxims 1-3 are true and worth defending.

Fletcher said...

Most people say that truth is important to them and that it is a virtue in their lives.

However, I have seen that when truth (i.e. the best arguments) start to take people in a direction where they are not comfortable, they don't want to go, or that "cramps their style", this reverence for truth quickly takes a turn to relativism - the very thing that initially they claim to not embrace.

So truth becomes "what is comfortable for me." Yuck.

hobie said...

Sometimes where you stand impacts where you sit. This isn't always a matter of relativism, and it isn't always a matter of comfort. Sometimes it's just a matter of having information that comes seeing something at a closer point of reference.

Anonymous said...

Hi Doug, this is your new friend in Ghana.

1. Follow the argument, wherever it leads.
2. Accept the truth, whatever it is.
3. Defend the truth, whatever the cost.

Did you come up with those? Impressive. Enjoyed the site. Will become a regular.

George

janelle said...

Loved it. Thanks

Fletcher said...

Hobie:

I don't understand your post. What does this mean? "Sometimes it's just a matter of having information that comes seeing something at a closer point of reference."

Smokey said...

Doug: "I have no idea what smokey is talking about."

Why not? Why can't you simply explain why following an argument is a better maxim than following the evidence?

As for the second, are you really incapable of realizing the moral an ethical reasons why our legal system operates under maxims that prohibit the use of hearsay as evidence in nearly all cases?

marko said...

Smokey wrote:"Why can't you simply explain why following an argument is a better maxim than following the evidence?"

-Smokey, I think you are on a grand adventure of missing the point.

After all, evidence is often the fuel for a persuasive argument - is it not?

ChrisB said...

Marko and all,

I posted on the "offensive" nature of this little piece on my blog.

Smokey said...

marko: After all, evidence is often the fuel for a persuasive argument - is it not?
Often yes, often no. That's why we should follow the evidence instead of following the argument.

Douglas Groothuis said...

Evidence plus an argument form equals a conclusion.

Ed Darrell said...

I still see great inconsistency in such a call, and your support of the bizarre claims of the Discovery Institute. I suspect in the case of intelligent design and its advocates, you've not yet followed the arguments.

Otherwise, a good standard.