This 2015 paper ought to provoke provoke an interesting discussion:
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Abstract
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.
Not per definition but per essence.
Water is not wet because I define it as wet. I define water as wet because that is what it is.
peace
If God could be proven by argument. Then he could be dis-proven by argument.
Instead of being the conclusion to an argument God is the only thing that makes arguments possible.
Sometimes folks just need to be reminded of that
peace
fifth,
Let’s take this step by step. No digressions, no evasions. Just answer the questions directly.
fifth:
Patrick:
Patrick is correct. Do you acknowledge that?
no
That God can reveal so I can know it is not a particular revelation.
Revelation in this context is a process not a proposition.
You are still tripping up on the problem of the one and the many
It might be difficult to know whether any particular water droplet is part of the cloud in front of me. But It’s undeniable that the cloud in front of me is made up of water droplets.
peace
fifth,
Your #2 is a proposition:
It’s something you claim to know.
This is obvious, fifth. Why are you embarrassing yourself this way?
Why not follow your own advise and tell me how you know stuff.
I know Ive asked the question enough to expect some kind of answer.
peace
fifth,
You’re trying to change the subject.
Do you acknowledge that #2 is in fact a proposition — one that you claim to know is true?
OK
but it’s not a particular revelation it’s a process by which knowledge is possible.
There are other things I know for certain as well but none of them are particular revelations rather they are more general.
Not like specific water droplets but more like clouds
peace
no “God can reveal so that I can know” is definitional not propositional
I know it the same what I know that a circle is circular.
I can’t be wrong about the circularity of circles or knowledge is impossible.
That does not mean that I know that circles are circular with out revelation just that I don’t know it by a particular revelation.
peace
Nope just pointing out that you always ask but never answer questions
peace
You acknowledge that #2 is a proposition. You claim to know it, by revelation. It is a particular proposition. In other words, it is a particular thing that you think is revelation.
Your #1 states:
Yet #2 is exactly such a thing. Therefore you can be wrong about #2. But if you can be wrong about #2, then it is in fact false:
Your argument fails.
You are really something, fifth.
In your followup comment I see that you wrote this:
Yet just a few comments earlier, you had this exchange with newton:
fifth:
newton:
fifth:
It’s propositional, not definitional. No, wait — it’s definitional, not propositional. No, wait…
World’s Worst Apologist. Incompetence incarnate.
Interesting
lets be clear
number 2 is “I can’t be wrong when I say that (God can reveal so that I can know.)”
There is an apparent difference I suppose between saying
2) I can’t be wrong when I say X is X
and
2A) I can’t be wrong that X is X
2 Seems to be particular and propositional but 2a is obviously definitional and general rather than particular.
It probably would have been less ambiguous if I would of originally posted 2a rather than 2 but the underlying thought is the same none the less.
God can reveal because that is who God is
it’s not a particular revelation but a universal general thing.
It’s definitional
Like X is X.
peace
let me lay it out
Here is what particular propositional thing looks like
1) The longer ending of Mark is original
Here is what a general definitional thing looks like
2) circles are circular
I think God has revealed both 1 and 2
I know 2 by revelation if I know 1 I know it by revelation as well.
however
I could be wrong about 1 and particular propositional things like it.
by the same token
If knowledge is possible at all I could not be wrong about 2 and definitional things like it.
This is simply the one and the many (or the concrete and the abstract if you like) and it’s tripping you up
peace
It’s not difficult and I did not stutter
It’s definitional not propositional but I don’t know it because I define it.
I know it because God revealed it and because that is who he is.
This seems to be pretty strait forward to me.
Why do you find it difficult to understand?
Is it because you can’t fathom a definition that is not subjective and plastic and anthropocentric?
peace
fifth,
You have Jesused yourself into a pitifully obvious contradiction:
Not only did you manage to contradict yourself, but you did it within the space of a single hour.
That is mind-boggling incompetence.
Now you’re flopping around, hoping to raise enough dust to obscure your stupid mistake.
Praise Jesus for leading another Christian to an ignominious defeat. He doesn’t seem to like you very much, fifth.
J-Mac,
I haven’t found the comment I was thinking of, but perhaps this series of comments describing my deconversion will assuage your curiosity in the meantime.
Strange how FMM cannot have a revelation that reveals to him how to communicate about revelation such that other people understand what he understands.
when and where did I say that #2 was propositional? You are usually quick to provide a link. It would be helpful if you provided one now. As it is you might be accused of making stuff up
I’ll grant that as I said before perhaps #2 might sound a little propositional if you are reading uncharitably but that was never the intent and a simple clarification #2A makes it’s definitional nature obvious.
Just because #2 is definitional does not mean that I’m the one doing the defining.
We humans don’t create definitions, definitions exist eternally in the mind of God we can only only hope that he reveals them to us.
It’s only because definitions exist eternally in the mind of God that we can confident that a circular square will not show up tomorrow somewhere.
It’s funny how you think clarification is raising dust.
Besides I never once claimed to be infallible. Like everyone else posting here I’m human
That is why that it’s so important to have a grounding for knowledge that is outside of myself. It’s a pity that you don’t have that necessary ingredient to your epistemology.
As it is if you ever make even a single mistake everything you think you know is suspect. I don’t have that problem because my knowledge does not depend on me.
peace
I don’t have the ability to reveal stuff so that you can know it.
Only God can do that and I’m not him
When it comes to human communication misunderstanding is always a possibility. That is why it’s so important that our grounding for knowledge comes from somewhere outside of us.
peace
And you immediately try to digress and evade. I understand why, I certainly wouldn’t want to have to defend the nonsense you write.
Once again you retreat to “presupposing” your claims rather than supporting them.
What you wrote was a contradiction. You can’t get out of it by simply redefining your claim as something else. Do you really think your god favors this kind of intellectual dishonesty?
When I make a claim I’m happy to support it. For instance I claimed that AFAIK you don’t have grounding for knowledge that is not subject to further regress and I support it by giving you the opportunity to tell us how you know stuff.
No it’s not. The problem is in your mistaking a definitional statement for a propositional one.
I did not redefine anything. “God can reveal” is not a proposition or a particular revelation any more than “circles are circular” is.
The ability to reveal is simply part of the what it means to be God, Just as circular is implied in the definition of circle
peace
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Sugar is sweet,
Therefore Vishnu
As I said, I wasn’t actually expecting much from you on this: you’re kind of invested, you know?
But you’ve made my point in your response. I said you could pick the plausible premise from which nothing about God follows or the question-begging premise from which the existence of God follows, but which nobody but theists will ever grant. You chose the latter.
And you define what that essence consists of, the ability to reveal stuff.
How do you justify the belief water is wet?
fifth,
Why does your God make you fail, over and over? Why is it so important to him that you lose these debates with atheists, in the most humiliating ways possible?
Why has he rejected you?
The good news is that you’re not actually on God’s shit list. He doesn’t exist, and neither does the list.
The bad news is that God doesn’t exist. You’ve built your life around a fantasy.
You haven’t thus far. You just call your claims “presuppositions” and act as though that’s meaningful. It’s just intellectually dishonest.
Burden of proof — you’re doing it wrong. Again.
The problem is that you refuse to support your claims.
You claim to know everything by revelation. You admit that you can be mistaken about whether or not something you claim to know is a genuine revelation. Therefore you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, including your oh so convenient definitions.
Opinion not fact
newton,
Do you think there’s any evidence that fifth’s God does exist?
Hey walto,
Interesting, I would say that what you are calling the “plausible premise” is not sufficient to ground knowledge.
I would agree that non-theists will never grant Christian presuppositions any more than Christians will grant your Atheistic presuppositions.
The only question remaining is which set of presuppositions are consistent and up to the task we require of them.
That is why the “how do you know?” question is so important.
peace
No, essences are not defined by human beings the Forms exist eternally in the mind of God and are revealed to us.
short answer– revelation.
slightly longer answer, if water is not wet then any knowledge whatsoever is impossible because the law of non-contradiction does not hold.
peace
not exactly more like this
God can reveal stuff so that I can know it.
I can be wrong about any particular thing I think has been revealed to me.
If knowledge is possible at all then words have meanings. If words don’t have meanings then knowledge is impossible
Peace
God is not just some proposition to be supported by evidence.
Rather he is the reason evidence is useful.
peace
Subjective opinion is all he’s got so he likes to spread it around in the hope that some one will mistake it as fact.
peace
In my opinion no convincing evidence but lacking omniscience it cannot be ruled out.
He ain’t the only one,fifth.
Is that a fact or is it just a subjective opinion?
😉
peace
keiths:
newton:
The existence of the Rain Fairy can’t be ruled out either, but it would be pretty stupid to build your life around a belief in her existence.
The Rain Fairy hypothesis is at least compatible with the evidence, though in a vacuous way. Christianity can’t even manage that much, as shown by our recent discussion of the problem of evil.
How do you know? You say you know everything by revelation.
Then you can be wrong about the existence of your god and your “knowledge” that it can reveal things to you.
If knowledge is possible at all then words have meanings. If words don’t have meanings then knowledge is impossible
Peace
FFM claims to believe in the Christian god as described in what he says is the inerrant Christian bible. The myriad contradictions within the Christian bible demonstrate that it is not inerrant, calling into question his specific god claim.
short answer— revelation
slightly longer answer—because being able to reveal is part of what it means to be an omnipotent God
Yes, but if that is the case then no knowledge whatsoever is possible including the knowledge that God does not exist.
It’s Christianity or absurdity
peace
Any contradictions you think are in the bible are apparent and not actual. You just think you see contradictions.
Your finite fallible biased intellect is playing tricks on you. You simply have no way no way to insure you are not mistaken in your impression.
It all boils down to relying on your limited biased subjective opinion.
peace
The irony is delicious.
Take a look in the mirror, subjective opinionist, AKA presuppositionist.
Finally you admit your error. That’s a good start.
You’ve made this claim repeatedly and never supported it with reason or evidence. Will this be the time you man up?
There are dozens if not hundreds. How Saul died is one of my favorites:
Saul committed suicide.
1 Samuel 31:4-6
Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.
1 Chronicles 10:4
Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
Saul was killed by an Amalekite.
2 Samuel 1:8-10
And he said unto me, Who [art] thou? And I answered him, I [am] an Amalekite.
He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life [is] yet whole in me.
So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that [was] upon his head, and the bracelet that [was] on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.
Saul was killed by the Philistines.
2 Samuel 21:12
And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh-gilead, which had stolen them from the street of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa:
God killed him.
1 Chronicles 10:14
And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
That would depend on what the Rain Fairy’s Tao was.
Convince anyone?
You could argue it either way
keiths:
newton:
keiths:
newton:
No, and that’s precisely the point. Christians recognize that the Rain Fairy hypothesis is ridiculous. What they don’t recognize, or allow themselves to recognize, is that Christianity is even worse due to its failure at resolving the problem of evil, among other flaws.
It’s not so obvious in fifthmonarchyman and Mung, who aren’t very bright to begin with. But look at people like Vincent Torley and Joshua Swamidass, who are competent when reasoning about non-religious topics, but whose minds turn to rationalizing mush when defending Christianity.