A forum for discussing matters of moment, from a curmudgeonly perspective. (The ideas posted here do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which I am a part). Rude and insulting remarks will not be published, but civil disagreement is welcome.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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: 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.
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.
I've never seen something so short with such potential for offending just about everybody I know. You have quite a gift :)
ReplyDeleteTo chrisb:
ReplyDeleteHow is that offensive?
Maybe you should meet more people.
ReplyDeleteWhy not follow the evidence, Doug?
ReplyDeleteWhy not realize that people who quote others instead of citing the evidence are immoral people?
I have no idea what smokey is talking about.
ReplyDeleteA [suggested] fourth maxim...
ReplyDelete4. Ask others if they believe their disagreements with maxims 1-3 are true and worth defending.
Most people say that truth is important to them and that it is a virtue in their lives.
ReplyDeleteHowever, 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteHi Doug, this is your new friend in Ghana.
ReplyDelete1. 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
Loved it. Thanks
ReplyDeleteHobie:
ReplyDeleteI 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."
Doug: "I have no idea what smokey is talking about."
ReplyDeleteWhy 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?
Smokey wrote:"Why can't you simply explain why following an argument is a better maxim than following the evidence?"
ReplyDelete-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?
Marko and all,
ReplyDeleteI posted on the "offensive" nature of this little piece on my blog.
marko: After all, evidence is often the fuel for a persuasive argument - is it not?
ReplyDeleteOften yes, often no. That's why we should follow the evidence instead of following the argument.
Evidence plus an argument form equals a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, a good standard.