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.
KN,
You’re still confusing fifth’s claim — that the Christian God is a prerequisite for knowledge — with his presupposition — that the Christian God exists.
The claim and the presupposition are distinct, and that’s easy to see.
Imagine if fifth were to present the presupposition with no supporting argument whatsoever:
When you asked him how he knew this, he would say “I presuppose it.” When you asked him why he presupposed it, he would say “I just do.”
That would be idiotic, and everyone would dismiss it as the worst kind of circular reasoning. Fifth knows that, and so he tries to do better.
He offers a reason — a claim as to why the presupposition is necessary:
As you can see, the presupposition without the claim is hopeless. It isn’t that much better with the claim, but at least it’s an improvement. And if the claim were true, fifth would actually have a point: who would choose absurdity if the alternative were non-absurd?
The problem is that fifth can’t demonstrate the truth of his claim (and I’m talking about his claim here, not his presupposition). The house of cards collapses.
Fifth isn’t bright enough to maintain the distinction between claims and presuppositions, but the rest of us needn’t be so sloppy.
I was referring to Biblical inerrancy. Since the Christian God is Omnipotent he can reveal with out error. Since he is righteous we can trust that he will do so.
My presupposition is simply that The Christian God exists.
The Christian God is omnipotent and righteous among other things.
I’m not grounding my belief that God is omnipotent in my presupposition that he exists.
I’m simply presupposing that the omnipotent Christian God exists
peace
presuppositionalists as far as I know don’t presuppose that there cannot be objective knowledge unless God exists. I know I don’t do that.
I’m perfectly willing to entertain the idea that objective knowledge can exist with out God.
In order for me to do so you have to explain how objective knowledge can exist with out God.
That is why I ask the “how do you know?” question repeatedly
peace
fifth,
It was a blatant quote mine.
Here’s what I wrote:
Here’s your quote mine:
Notice how you carefully cut off the quote just before the Bible was mentioned, and then changed the subject to God’s inerrancy instead of the Bible’s.
Like I said, quote mining is a sign of desperation on your part.
And the motivation behind the quote mine is obvious.
The inerrancy of God is part of your presupposition that the Christian God exists. It comes for free, so to speak, and you imagine that it cannot be challenged since it is part of your presupposition.
The inerrancy of the Bible, by contrast, can be challenged simply by pointing to its inaccuracies and contradictions.
Evidence makes you queasy. Far better to quote mine me in order to maneuver the discussion back to the safer territory of God’s inerrancy than it is to face the voluminous evidence against the Bible’s inerrancy.
Today’s pseudo-profound Deepakity:
The Bible is inerrant Because the Christian God exists. Because God is omnipotent I know that he could reveal with out error. Because he is righteous I know he would reveal with out error
Since the Christian God exists what you think are inaccuracies and contradictions are merely apparent inaccuracies and contradictions.
If you claim the Bible has actual inaccuracies and contradictions you need to support that claim by refuting the scholarship that disagrees with your claim.
The bar for you is rather high because you have to demonstrate that it is impossible to interpret the Bible is such a way that it is inerrant.
Simply assuming your uncharitable out of context interpretation is the correct one will not do.
Good luck
peace
No God is the only way we can “make sense” of evidence.
If God did not exist then what you are calling evidence would only be raw data disjointed ones and zeros in an absurd existence. Enough to make anyone queasy.
Since God does exist raw data can be evidence that leads to knowledge.
Evidence does not prove God’s existence,
Rather God is the only reason we can prove anything with evidence.
peace
It is obvious that the Bible is open to interpretation. We can either pick it apart in an attempt to discredit it by finding the inaccuracies and contradictions in the writings, or we can look for the deeper truths held within its pages. The Old Testament documents the development of the ego within the Jewish people. The appearance and subsequent evolution of the self-conscious ego is something which modern biologists must agree has come about at some point during the history of humans.
The Jewish people by being at the forefront of the development this ego prepared the way for a body that was suitable to allow the great cosmic Ego. the I AM to incarnate. Yahweh, the Father God was the God of the people, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. The coming of Christ allowed for the individual humans regardless of race or tribe to attain full egohood.
The Bible documents the contraction of egohood through the race or the tribe down to the individual. Ancient Jews felt their ego as belonging to the whole race through the generations, modern humans feel their ego within themselves as individuals.
Is this profundity or pseudo,profound bullshit. I probably already know which posters will see it in which way 🙂
You may not have noticed, Charlie, that there are those here who insist there are no such inaccuracies or contradictions to be found in the writings.
First things first, you know?
I suppose if we are going to go down this rabbit hole we need to be explicit as to what the “claim” actually is.
check it out
http://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/old/Resource_545/Book%202,%20Sec%2023.pdf
peace
Yes. I was raised in the Congregationalist church. I received a King James bible for some Sunday School thing when I was around 11. What caused my beliefs to change was reading it.
My understanding of FFM’s position is that he presupposes the existence of the Christian god, contradictions and all, because he can’t think of any other grounding for knowledge. Of course, he hasn’t demonstrated that his presupposition provides a grounding for knowledge, but that doesn’t stop him from continuously repeating that claim.
I have provided full context. You are the one who keeps dishonestly cutting it out. Here it is again:
Look at the actual words in 1 Samuel:
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.
Now look at 2 Samuel:
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 . . . .
Then read the passages about the Philistines and god doing his own dirty work. Those are clearly contradictory. Your story ignores the actual words and inserts additional material that is not in the text. It is a profoundly dishonest way of attempting to ignore the evidence that disproves your claim of biblical inerrancy. Is this really how you think your god wants you to behave?
Before asking others to disprove your claim you have the obligation to support it or retract it. Thus far you’ve done neither. That is not intellectually honest behavior.
The hypothesis is supported every time some one is unable to give a consistent answer to the “how do you know?” question that is not subject to further regress.
It is difficult to prove a negative so your continued inability to provide an answer does not prove that no answer is possible but it does support the hypothesis
I thought I made that clear from the outset.
peace
Take it up with Charlie. He’s the one who says there are inaccuracies and contradictions that one ought to look past to get at the “deeper truths.” I take it he “knows stuff” because he’s read it in Steiner. (The latter individual was not, I understand, a Calvinist.)
Haha. A “consistent answer.”
So sayeth the maven.
no you haven’t the “full” context would include all of scripture and history. You provided snippets of disjointed text
No they are not. I repeat no one on my side of the fence thinks they are contradictory
Literally millions of people have poured over these texts for thousands of years with out coming to the conclusion that they are contradictory.
You need to demonstrate why the interpretations all of those people over all that time could not possibly be correct and prove that your uncharitable out of context interpretation is the only one that is possible
again good luck
peace
I take it Charlie is not “on your side” then.
By consistent I simply mean one that does not contradict itself.
For example “The only way to know stuff is by using the scientific method” Is obviously not consistent because the answer itself was not obtained by using the scientific method.
get it?
peace
I don’t know
I have no idea what his actual position is on this one. I would need more information.
peace
FWIW, I think you should start with the Steiner guys and work your way up to the atheists.
if the “deeper truths” he is talking about are the things that God meant to communicate in scripture then there is no disagreement at all.
That is what the whole field of textual criticism is about
peace
Sure. You insist on a foundationalist answer. Most foundationalists will just say something like “Self-evidence.” You prefer to muddy those waters.
I think you should ask him. Again, when you’ve converted him to your version of presuppositionalism (which I take it you believe to be the sole worldview that actually makes sense), you could move up! Baby steps. 🙂
not at all. I insist on a consistent answer that is not subject to further regress.
My answer is not foundationalist and it meets those criteria. In fact Ive never received a foundationalist answer that did meet those criteria
peace
ask him what?
Whether he agrees with the specific wording of the Chicago statement or whether he thinks God can reveal so that we can know?
It seems to me that you are confusing presupositionalism with Patrick’s rabbit hole.
It’s possible that someone could agree that God could reveal so that we can know and at the same time deny that he has done so.
In that case you would be affirming that knowledge is possible but denying that it actually exists.
peace
That is an interesting answer. What does it mean exactly?
Are you saying “I can know stuff if it is self-evident”?
If so is that self-evident?
peace
A claim by any other name.
You’re still skipping the part where you provide evidence or a reasoned argument supporting your claim. As you’ve been told repeatedly, your childhood indoctrination is not the default no matter how desperately you cling to those beliefs.
You got something right. I can agree with “no god” as the way to make sense of evidence.
(I’m just having a little fun with quoting).
That’s simply not the case. You have provided no support for your claim. What others do or don’t do is immaterial. You made the claim, it is incumbent on you to support it or retract it.
I provided the full verses around those that contradict each other and a reference for anyone to be able to look them up in your bible.
Then the people on your side of the fence are willfully blind. Anyone reading those verses objectively can clearly see the contradiction.
I note that you don’t actually address the verses themselves. In fact you avoid quoting them. It’s clear you don’t have an answer. The evidence speaks for itself: There are contradictions in your bible.
What “claim”? be specific
When you call everything a claim I have trouble knowing what you are demanding I support.
Do you want me to support
1) the idea that an omnipotent God can reveal so that I can know.
Or do you want me to support the idea that
2)I don’t know any other way that knowledge is possible?
either statement seems to be pretty strait forward to me
(1) is definitionally obvious
(2) is a tentative statement of my personal present knowledge
Peace
You need to support that claim or retract it
you hypocrite
peace
I happen to be reading on Sellars’ attack on the “myth of the given” (diverted from Rorty) which seems relevant to the talks about foundationalism here.
…just in case I can derail the thread and learn something in the process LOL
keep that up and you might be my new favorite 😉
peace
Now you’re talking my language! I’ve studied Sellars’s argument very closely over the years and wrote a book about it. Presuppositionalism is clearly a kind of foundationalism, so the criticism of foundatoionalism is relevant here.
Poor walto
Perhaps I’ll be talking your language when I understand it, LOL. What’s that book of yours if I may ask?
I’ll send you a private message about it.
I couldn’t disagree more. Presuppositionalism is not a type of foundationalism and could in fact be seen as a reaction against foundationalism.
Instead Presuppositionalism is closer to Foundherentism and incorporates Existential epistemology as well.
When It comes down to it what is really going on in Presuppositionalism is a external focus instead of an internal one.
My knowledge depends on God rather than on my own cognitive faculties.
That focus makes it fundamentally different than any of the competing epistemological theories. If you don’t get this you are missing the point.
peace
fifth,
You presuppose that the Christian God exists. Even if that were true, it would not follow that the Bible is inerrant.
This is obvious.
KN:
dazz:
Neil started a thread on it when it was published:
Why?
Do you think God is unable or unwilling to keep errors out of his revelation to us?
peace
Thanks!
Claims like this one:
And this one:
And this one:
And also this one:
Now, you already knew that because we’ve been discussing it for some time. Why are you pretending not to know? Is that how you think your god wants you to act?
Let’s see if you have the intellectual integrity to support those claims or retract them.
It’s supported by the fact that the verses are objectively contradictory. Anyone who disagrees is doing so not for rational, logically defensible reasons.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
— Daniel Patrick Moynihan
fifth:
I don’t think God exists. But even if I thought he did, I certainly wouldn’t blame the Bible on him.
I’m not an idiot, and no God worthy of the name would be one, either.