You Know NOTHING, Sye Ten.

(the following is the text version of this video here).

Let’s take a look at Sye’s whole argument and not just the single premise he spent ten minutes explaining why he felt he’s not required to offer reason or support to justify. To defend that premise Sye used the; “but I’m really super-cereal special” defense of God, Let’s look at his whole argument this time.

Sye;
Premise 1: It is reasonable to believe that which is true.

Premise 2: It’s true that God exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that God exists.

I’m getting the impression that Sye is trying to do a runaround on justified true belief. Justified true belief is a philosophical concept that dates back to Plato. Up until the 1960s it was treated as the accepted, established definition of what knowledge is.

Then a philosopher named Edmund Gettier came along and with a few simple observations did the philosophical equivalent of drop a nuclear bomb on the Justified True Belief definition of knowledge, and the field of epistemology hasn’t been the same since.

For half a century now no one has really been able to offer a definition of what “knowledge” is that has the strength and certitude of the now defunct JTB definition of knowledge.

Which brings us back to Sye.

He appears to be trying to come up with a definition of knowledge that doesn’t involve justified true belief but when you examine premise one and three you see that all he’s doing is a poor reordering and rewording of the justified true belief definition of knowledge (I’ve reordered his premises here for clarity’s sake and I am treating Sye’s conclusion as a premise as it is an unsupported, and therefore more premise than conclusion).
sye slide 6

 

Sye is using the word “reasonable” in the place of “justifiable” in premise thre and if you apply consistency to Sye’s usage of the word “reasonable” then premise two is also a statement of justification as well. In other words, it’s a statement of justified belief; in the context of the premise a justified true belief.

But I suspect Sye knows Gettier killed the justified true belief definition of knowledge (he didn’t just kill it, Gettier dragged it into a back alley, stole its wallet, pummeled it to death and then uploaded a bunch of selfies of himself with the corpse for the whole world to see). So rather than say these beliefs are justified Sye is saying that they are “reasonable”.

What Sye has given us is a definition of knowledge which has two assertions of justified belief with no establishment of belief. I had originally thought that Sye’s argument is viciously circular but upon closer examination I’m seeing that it isn’t even that. It’s just incredibly incoherent. Sye presenting a circular reasoning argument would actually be an improvement on what he’s offered here. In the end run all Sye has done is shown that he’s proven he doesn’t know anything.

Don’t forget to subscribe and if you think helping me do my part to expose those who fight against reason and knowledge is important then follow the link below to my patreon page where you can offer your support. remember, your support helps make this all happen.

Follow me on:

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePooka

which is now

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/PhilipRose

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetruepooka

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheTruePooka

*same day edit to fix picture and add sign-off

Rev. Rose on Dr. Paul’s “Bossy Standard”

In an effort to put a halt to the AVFM war on logic & reason (a war that generously targets not just women but men) Rev. Philip has decided to offer sage analysis on some writing by the good Dr. Paul!

Dr. Paul has written a response to the recent resurgence of protest to the use of the word “bossy” as a slur against women in power.

bossy bitch

Without further ado I give you choice words by Dr. Paul on the word; “Bossy”.

paul

Let’s examine what Dr. Paul has done here. Continue reading

Zimmerman Apologists Butthurt and Still In Denial

The following is a response to a comment by a George Zimmerman apologist I received in a thread from a person on the subject of George Zimmerman located here.

The original article reports on George Zimmerman’s recent claims to poverty and homelessness.  For those who have been living under a rock George Zimmerman pursued and shot to death a young black youth by the name of Trayvon Martin.  He was acquitted under Florida’s questionable “Stand Your Ground” laws.

I had attempted to explain to one of the offended Zimmerman fans some basic concepts of law; specifically the difference between “Not Guilty” and “Innocent” in response to some highly dubious claims he made about Zimmerman being; “wrongfully prosecuted” (those comments can be found here).

His response devolved into a position of butthurt that has me concerned that I may receive a subpoena to appear in court and defend myself against a Civil Suit.

I'm sure this lawyer will take his case.

I’m sure this lawyer will take his case.

He responded with this comment;

Continue reading

Shutdown 2013: The Mini Clean Resolution Gambit

The following is a transcript of this video.

Bankrupting America posted 5 questions for their Sunday show related to the present debacle that is the GOP shutdown of the government.  I was startled to read their first topic point for discussion as it appeared they were having trouble understanding why the President has refused to allow the GOP to pass what they are calling; “mini CRs” in the continuing saga that is Shutdown 2013.

The following can be found here;

Bankrupting America; “What Has Congress Spent The Hours Since The Shutdown Doing? Many Republicans have held fast to their belief that their party should use the continuing resolution to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act. Democrats, of course, have refused that course and will continue to do so. Yesterday, House Republicans tried to pass “mini” CRs to keep certain agencies (national parks and museums, veterans’ programs and the District of Columbia government) functioning. President Obama said he would veto these plans. White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage argued, “These piecemeal efforts are not serious and they are no way to run a government.” (Other Democrats also said they didn’t want to fund the government in “bits and pieces.”) We’re wondering what is the difference between these mini-CRs and, you know, those 12 individual appropriations bills Congress was supposed to pass before Oct. 1? Has the president conceded passing separate bills is no longer an acceptable course? Or a wise one? We’re, admittedly, confused. “

To sum up their question, they’re confused about why the GOP controlled House putting forward mini clean resolutions is unacceptable, as opposed to a full  CR.

The mini CRs  offer piecemeal funding of government programs as opposed to full funding of the government. It’s only confusing if you don’t understand the difference between shutting down the government so you can then put through only the legislation your party wants to get through and the normal legislative process that consists of working together to come up with law that is a compromise between the parties involved.

In other words; despite the Tea Party wishes, this is not a one party system.  They don’t get to do; “It’s my way or the highway” in a system that’s based on legislation being developed by the passage of votes.  Their actions are the actions of a terrorist threatening;  Do as I say or else!   We did not do as they say so they carried out their political act of terrorism and now they expect us to act as if it’s SSDD.

If it helps you to understand further consider the principle in law that;

“Promises made under duress are not binding.”

It is understood that the duress in question poisons the promises which leads to people making decisions without sound judgment.  For the Democrats to accede to the wishes of the GOP would be to agree to legislation made under duress.  Such legislation cannot be trusted as good legislation due to the corrupting influence of said duress.  If the President allows the GOP to get their way, then all any party has to do is shutdown the government, disrupt the entire country (and possibly the world) and then refuse to negotiate until they get their way.  Within a matter of weeks any party could effectively turn this into a one voice only government; a dictatorship where the presiding ruler is the Speaker of the House.

Our founding fathers wisely set up our government so it functions through a series of checks and balances.  The Tea Party faction of the GOP is presently trying to circumvent that system.  If we allow them to do that then the dream our founding fathers envisioned for this country truly dies on that day and America just becomes another fascist country ruled by a Mickey Mouse dictator.

Inmendham will get you Exitreason

Apparently I’ve been blocked by user “Inmendham”.

He’s a local crank on youtube who has made a total hash out of philosophy in general but especially the philosophy known as “anti-natilism”.  I’m not sure why I’ve been blocked as I haven’t ever commented on his videos (or really watched them for that matter) in the years I’ve been aware of him.  I assume it is a preemptive blocking because he fears me (or more specifically; my mind).

So I’ll be responding here. I won’t bother responding to the video because like most Inmendham videos they’re made up of multiple fallacies, shoddy thinking, and just all around scatterbrained logic packaged in a minimum 20 minute repetitive ramble.

Just about everything he says is laughably easy to address and counter in a quarter the time he takes to say it.

This is a man who epitomizes the “know nothingness” that is celebrated in this country.   A man who insisted that you can live as a vegetarian and keep to a healthy, tasty, nutritious diet on the 100 dollars a month from NYC foodstamp programs while he whinges on (incorrectly) that cigarette taxes have gone up “1,000 percent” which he feels is a great injustice as it impacts on his ability to buy more cancer sticks and smoke ’em up.

I’ll add that if he had taken a moment to STFU from braying his opinion out like a donkey with hemorrhoids while he was insisting that his excellent, cost savings vegetarian diet of solely a bag of rice a month  was a perfect solution, he might have heard the crucial fact that the people in question lacked a stove to cook the rice required for the new improved Inmendham-Scurvy-Vegetarian diet.

In other words;  he’s your typical self centered, know nothing blowhard who is long on words but short on what it takes to back them up.

So here’s the one thing I found worth commenting and responding to on Gary’s pointless video: a comment by user rationalaxis.

He’s welcome to come here and discuss it or he can continue to hang out with others in what is the echo chamber that passes for Gary’s mind.

Image

Comment is on this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui-H-hSNNKI

Follow me on;

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePooka

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetruepooka

A Classic Example of Use of the Fallacy of Division

I decided to post this here because it contains arguments from a commenter from TheFunnyFeminist’s blog about Rush Limbaugh’s verbal attack of Sandra Fluke. It was such a classic example of some amazing use of fallacy that I wanted to keep it close for posterity’s sake.The comments in question were done on January 10th, 2013 by commenter Pheonixjeff and are fairly representative of the kind of noise you get from commenters around the internet.

The following are excerpts from our comments on TheFunnyFeminist’s blog:

Me: Pheonixjeff is pulling a tu quoque fallacy here (in part). The rest;

A. The attack was made against women. Not white women, much as some would like to portray it.

B. Just because others suffer apparently worse discrimination doesn’t mean you can’t comment on an inequality or discriminatory act.

In that case let’s stop discussing all rights issues in America because the Iraqi citizens have had it so badly due to the last ten years of war inflicted on them, shall we? That certainly outweighs any Western suffering!

See how invalid my statement was?  Pheonixjeff is doing the same.

Continue reading

Simplistic Libertarianism

I interact with quite a few libertarians of all types on the internet and one of the claims I hear frequently made by some of them is that; “only the federal government can use the force that is intrinsic to Statism. The states are incapable of being a “State” because the federal government is the ultimate power in the United States that has a monopoly on all the force in America.

I’ve taken to calling this; Simplistic libertarianism” because it doesn’t take into consideration the complexity of how a society works, especially one as large as American society. It doesn’t take into account the social contract that exists between the people and the body of law that is the expression of that social contract.

The simplistic libertarian claims to focus on who has the greatest monopoly on force but even in this his view is two dimensional and they’re incredibly selective in how they pick who in fact has that monopoly. If you look at the United States government versus it’s citizenry in terms of who would wipe the other out if the two engaged in all out warfare clearly the United States would be the victor in that contest.

Continue reading