Sign in to follow this  
The Folk Prophet

Facts and Supposals, oh my

Recommended Posts

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/getting-it-wrong-how-not-to-save-lds-youth-in-a-secular-age/

 

Brilliant article

 

I particularly love:

 

"The more fundamental problem is that often our youth, not to mention many adults, lack the kind of nuanced approach to information that they require to be able to evaluate the facts in distinction to the narratives about the facts. They have been conditioned by mass media, public schools, and often academics themselves to accept uncritically any narrative that carries the label “scholarly consensus” or “science” at face value. For them, “science” is functionally little more than an appeal to a culturally acceptable authority which they are expected to accept largely on blind faith."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/getting-it-wrong-how-not-to-save-lds-youth-in-a-secular-age/

 

Brilliant article

 

I particularly love:

 

"The more fundamental problem is that often our youth, not to mention many adults, lack the kind of nuanced approach to information that they require to be able to evaluate the facts in distinction to the narratives about the facts. They have been conditioned by mass media, public schools, and often academics themselves to accept uncritically any narrative that carries the label “scholarly consensus” or “science” at face value. For them, “science” is functionally little more than an appeal to a culturally acceptable authority which they are expected to accept largely on blind faith."

I'm no expert, but having spent considerable time reading about and following the BYU Maxwell Institute kerfluffle, both pre- and post-purging, I must say that my sympathies lie almost entirely with Peterson, Hamblin, et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert, but having spent considerable time reading about and following the BYU Maxwell Institute kerfluffle, both pre- and post-purging, I must say that my sympathies lie almost entirely with Peterson, Hamblin, et al.

 

I haven't read anything on it, and barely know what happened at all. But I expect I'd agree with you -- as we tend to agree. Was that the fired side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read anything on it, and barely know what happened at all. But I expect I'd agree with you -- as we tend to agree. Was that the fired side?

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, I wasn't aware of the kerfluffle. How things happened is absolutely appalling.

For a moment while reading the article I was bracing for a conclusion I disagreed with, but it never came. I was pleasantly surprised to find agreement. Largely because it encourages 'facts' and a paradigm, with a healthy amount of critical thinking, while still relying on #1 

 

 

  1. Help them to have real, personal experiences with the divine that will lead to a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost about Joseph Smith, the church, and the living prophets and apostles. If they follow the prophets and apostles they will learn through their own experiences that they can trust them as God’s spokesmen. The Holy Ghost is real and will confirm to them of the truths of the gospel and the church if we are willing to stand up and testify of them.

A different approach might be taken for some students of philosophy who can't trust #1 let alone their own existence. [or maybe not]

Edited by Crypto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A different approach might be taken for some students of philosophy who can't trust #1 let alone their own existence. [or maybe not]

 

ROFL.  Alan Greenspan wrote a book a few years ago called The Age of Turbulence.  He and Ayn Rand were friends, and he used to visit her New York apartment regularly to discuss philosophy.  Ms. Rand thought Greenspan had a sour, sulking appearance, and she used to call him the "undertaker."  I recall a very amusing story about this, and thanks to Google here is a nifty summary of the story, courtesy of the New York Times:

 

Before he met Rand, Greenspan was a logical positivist. He refused to accept the reality of anything that could not be verified by “significant empirical evidence.” His own existence, for example. Rand started calling him “the undertaker” and would ask friends, “Has the undertaker decided whether he exists yet?”

 

HAHAHA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this sounds pretentious, but some jokes about ontology and solipsism are really funny.

 

One of my favorite philosophers (Alvin Plantinga) tells a story about how he found a professor who was a true solipsist.  (A solipsist believes that he or she exists, but that nothing else does.)  Plantinga went to visit him, and they had a nice chat for a few minutes.  On the way out of the front office, Plantinga asked the professor's staff about how they liked the professor.  "Oh, we take very good care of him," they said.  "When he goes, we all go."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, I wasn't aware of the kerfluffle. How things happened is absolutely appalling.

 

Just out of curiosity, because there are two very divergent sides to the matter, which "things" are you considering appalling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read one article on it (thanks Vort, btw, for getting me truly intrigued...I sat and read about it for hours last night) that claimed the real problem was that he ultimately was using money raised in support of the traditional FARMS model (apologetics) to support his new vision -- which was like using money raised for a library for Football uniforms or the like -- in other words, entirely dishonest. Thought it was an interesting idea.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/getting-it-wrong-how-not-to-save-lds-youth-in-a-secular-age/

 

Brilliant article

 

I particularly love:

 

"The more fundamental problem is that often our youth, not to mention many adults, lack the kind of nuanced approach to information that they require to be able to evaluate the facts in distinction to the narratives about the facts. They have been conditioned by mass media, public schools, and often academics themselves to accept uncritically any narrative that carries the label “scholarly consensus” or “science” at face value. For them, “science” is functionally little more than an appeal to a culturally acceptable authority which they are expected to accept largely on blind faith."

 

I liked the article and will read more later.  One of the important constructs of both mathematics and rhetorical logic is being able to work through logic sequences when one does not agree with the premise or perhaps the conclusion.  There is another side of this coin and that is being able to work through and find faulty logic when one agrees with both the premise and conclusion.

 

Human nature (which can also be a tendency of the natural man) is to value logic that comes to the same conclusions we have found and dis-value logic that somehow comes to a different conclusion.  This is all very problematic for both teachers and students. 

 

At this point - I would like to say that I am the example that everyone should follow - but I have my natural tendencies as well.  But I do try to be honest in a way that others might be offended in my thought of honesty.  For example often I will bring arguments to the table - not because I believe them to be true but because I believe those I am addressing are using faulty logic to reach a conclusion - even though I agree (at least in part) with the conclusion their logic to get there appears to be to be seriously flawed. 

 

Often I believe that if someone has concluded something I disagree with that if I cannot defend their conclusion better than they can - I should not consider an in-depth discussion with them.  One thing for certain - when having discussions in which two individuals are passionate about but have different conclusions - two things are most likely.  First, that neither will consider any valid points from the other.  And Second, that it is most likely that the more they discuss the more they will dislike each other - often overflowing into hatred. 

 

So my big question - how does one deal with someone that concludes a much different result than they have?  If we default to isolation we can well be the cause of such things as dysfunctional families and bitter hateful divorcees.  Sometimes the divide is so wide we may think it impossible to deal with the other -- but didn't Jesus say to love our enemies and do good to those that spitefully use us?   or to agree with an adversary?   but is not Satan the adversary?

 

Those that say no matter what they believe and follow G-d and no matter what they do not believe or follow Satan - What then if they both say the same thing?  How do you know which is which?

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but didn't Jesus say to love our enemies and do good to those that spitefully use us?   or to agree with an adversary?   but is not Satan the adversary?

 

To be fair the GR footnote renders "agree" as, "Quickly have kind thoughts for, or be well disposed toward." Which makes a whole lot more sense than "agree with" when it comes to someone who has wrong-headed anti-Christ ideas or the like. But it still doesn't work for Satan. Should we be well disposed towards Satan or have kind thoughts towards him? I think not.

 

Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my big question - how does one deal with someone that concludes a much different result than they have? If we default to isolation we can well be the cause of such things as dysfunctional families and bitter hateful divorcees. Sometimes the divide is so wide we may think it impossible to deal with the other -- but didn't Jesus say to love our enemies and do good to those that spitefully use us? or to agree with an adversary? but is not Satan the adversary?

Those that say no matter what they believe and follow G-d and no matter what they do not believe or follow Satan - What then if they both say the same thing? How do you know which is which?

A judgement has already happened in the pre-existence. One third were cast out and, as best I understand it, can never recover. To me that means that our Father has passed a final judgement upon those spirits and that makes them our enemies. That means, once we recognize one of these, we're not obliged to listen to or try to reason with them.. but simply cast them out as our Father has already done. As with Satan and Eve in the garden, they may try to reason with us and persuade us saying, "I am your brother." But being who they are, being who they've *become* (spirits of wrath, liars, angels to a devil and father of all lies) even such claims of "brotherhood" ring hollow at best.. For, as Eve rightly pointed out: what kind of a "brother" are you really if your intent is to persuade a sibling to "disobey Father?" To me, they are enemies and have forfeited the right to consider themselves my brother or sister. They would deceitfully set themselves up as an angel of light when all they really have left to offer us (as Moses pointed out) is darkness.

As for those who didn't lose their first estate, final judgement has not yet been pronounced. To me that means they are still *first* my brothers and sisters, and not an absolute enemy as those who were cast out. Even if something in mortality puts us in opposite camps, they are still my brothers and sisters first and an "enemy" second. I think that *these* are the enemies that we're commanded to love, since there is still hope in repentance for both of us even though we find ourselves currently in disagreement or at odds with each other. So, until our Father and our Savior designate them (or, heaven forbid, *us*) as a "common enemy," there is still a hope in our being reconciled and we are commanded to hope, pray, and strive for such.

Edited by theSQUIDSTER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A judgement has already happened in the pre-existence. One third were cast out and, as best I understand it, can never recover. To me that means that our Father has passed a final judgement upon those spirits and that makes them our enemies. That means, once we recognize one of these, we're not obliged to listen to or try to reason with them.. but simply cast them out as our Father has already done. As with Satan and Eve in the garden, they may try to reason with us and persuade us saying, "I am your brother." But being who they are, being who they've *become* (spirits of wrath, liars, angels to a devil and father of all lies) even such claims of "brotherhood" ring hollow at best.. For, as Eve rightly pointed out: what kind of a "brother" are you really if your intent is to persuade a sibling to "disobey Father?" To me, they are enemies and have forfeited the right to consider themselves my brother or sister. They would deceitfully set themselves up as an angel of light when all they really have left to offer us (as Moses pointed out) is darkness.

As for those who didn't lose their first estate, final judgement has not yet been pronounced. To me that means they are still *first* my brothers and sisters, and not an absolute enemy as those who were cast out. Even if something in mortality puts us in opposite camps, they are still my brothers and sisters first and an "enemy" second. I think that *these* are the enemies that we're commanded to love, since there is still hope in repentance for both of us even though we find ourselves currently in disagreement or at odds with each other. So, until our Father and our Savior designate them (or, heaven forbid, *us*) as a "common enemy," there is still a hope in our being reconciled and we are commanded to hope, pray, and strive for such.

 

Thank you very much for your post.  First I must admit that I have played a kind of rhetorical trick.  I did so to more establish a point from my initial post.  What I did was create a false initial condition.  I did so to demonstrate the importance of the initial condition in reaching a conclusion.  In this case the conclusion in question is how to tell the difference; the assumption is that you just choose between G-d and Satan when there is not actual way to do so.  But the initial condition is that there is no difference.  By arguing against the conclusion you fell into my little trap and focused on the wrong problem thinking it is all about the conclusion and not the method of getting there - which was a false premise.

 

I submit this prejudice is the single most often problem in trying to resolve most differences of opinions.  Because you argue against a valid conclusion from the initial condition your supporting logic may not help resolve a difference.  The only possible resolution can only come from the other person realizing their premise is wrong - something your arguments will not help discover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your post.  First I must admit that I have played a kind of rhetorical trick.  I did so to more establish a point from my initial post.  What I did was create a false initial condition.  I did so to demonstrate the importance of the initial condition in reaching a conclusion.  In this case the conclusion in question is how to tell the difference; the assumption is that you just choose between G-d and Satan when there is not actual way to do so.  But the initial condition is that there is no difference.  By arguing against the conclusion you fell into my little trap and focused on the wrong problem thinking it is all about the conclusion and not the method of getting there - which was a false premise.

 

I submit this prejudice is the single most often problem in trying to resolve most differences of opinions.  Because you argue against a valid conclusion from the initial condition your supporting logic may not help resolve a difference.  The only possible resolution can only come from the other person realizing their premise is wrong - something your arguments will not help discover.

Why doesn't an argument against a conclusion include the premise, especially if it is discussed that way?  In other words, people, when discussing things - at least in my house, often also discuss how they arrived at such a conclusion and present it as one item and not broken into premises and conclusions. Maybe there is some prejudice for the defender to think that the arguments are focused on the conclusion and doesn't verify that actually the person is arguing against the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your post.  First I must admit that I have played a kind of rhetorical trick.  I did so to more establish a point from my initial post.  What I did was create a false initial condition.  I did so to demonstrate the importance of the initial condition in reaching a conclusion.  In this case the conclusion in question is how to tell the difference; the assumption is that you just choose between G-d and Satan when there is not actual way to do so.  But the initial condition is that there is no difference.  By arguing against the conclusion you fell into my little trap and focused on the wrong problem thinking it is all about the conclusion and not the method of getting there - which was a false premise.

 

I submit this prejudice is the single most often problem in trying to resolve most differences of opinions.  Because you argue against a valid conclusion from the initial condition your supporting logic may not help resolve a difference.  The only possible resolution can only come from the other person realizing their premise is wrong - something your arguments will not help discover.

 

Uh maybe you need to diagram this or something.  It's been 25 years since my single logic class I took in college, so I'm a tad sketchy on deciphering what you're actually trying to say.  

 

Here's what it kinda sounds like:

 

"Thank you for this friendly fencing match.  I'll have to admit in all honesty that I played a silly trick.  And you fell right into my little trap.  You brought a ball and glove instead of an Épée or Foil.. which are more commonly used in fencing.  Let me explain to you why what you are attempting to do is not recognized by the olymipic committee as fencing..."

 

Ok... so I believe the only thing we've established is that you were having a conversation about what makes an apple an apple and I jumped in and started explaining the foraging habits of the platypus....

 

Translation:

 

My apologies... I guess I completely missed the point of what you were actually discussing...  :lol:

 

Somebody please hit my RESET button....  ;)

Edited by theSQUIDSTER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just happy that my thoughts on what traveler posted was "I'm not quite sure how I should respond to this"
You stepped in and stopped me from looking foolish ^_^ (Well maybe not so much now that i've outed myself ;) )

I think I follow what he means. In short form, The premise (basic assumptions), logic (reasons), or conclusion of an argument can all have varying degrees of flaw or strength and depending on what people focus on changes how a discussion/argument progresses, whether any agreement or understanding can be found. Right? maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just happy that my thoughts on what traveler posted was "I'm not quite sure how I should respond to this"

You stepped in and stopped me from looking foolish 

 

For what it's worth, from my perspective, those responding to Traveler's post are not the ones who look foolish (sorry Traveler...but that's a pretty cheap game to be playing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your post.  First I must admit that I have played a kind of rhetorical trick.  I did so to more establish a point from my initial post.  What I did was create a false initial condition.  I did so to demonstrate the importance of the initial condition in reaching a conclusion.  In this case the conclusion in question is how to tell the difference; the assumption is that you just choose between G-d and Satan when there is not actual way to do so.  But the initial condition is that there is no difference.  By arguing against the conclusion you fell into my little trap and focused on the wrong problem thinking it is all about the conclusion and not the method of getting there - which was a false premise.

 

I submit this prejudice is the single most often problem in trying to resolve most differences of opinions.  Because you argue against a valid conclusion from the initial condition your supporting logic may not help resolve a difference.  The only possible resolution can only come from the other person realizing their premise is wrong - something your arguments will not help discover.

 

Ok... let me try this again...  but hopefully with a little more clarity..

 

Traveler,

If you're interested I'll make an effort to actually talk about what you appear to me to be talking about.  (No apple versus platypus discussion this time...  :P)

 

As I understand it, you wanted to use my initial response as an example of how not to win an argument.  If winning the "argument," (translation convincing you and others) means that you are wrong about something and I am right about it then, at least in your case, I'm pretty sure I failed.  Not only did I not convince you that your premise was faulty but I apparently "jumped to the conclusion" ... not only my own conclusion, but your conclusion in the "official argument" we were apparently having. 

 

So, I was surprised when you announced that you had tricked me to make a point  If we had been actually officially debating a point... or debating for points then I would most likely receive none but maybe you would receive one or more points.  In a game or match of strategy this would be a very good thing.   The goal is to win points and ultimately the debate according to the rules of debating and sound arguments.... which, presumably, everyone agrees upon otherwise they wouldn't be participating.

 

The trouble is I thought we were actually having a friendly discussion on a doctrinal point or two... albeit, with an amicable disagreement or two thrown in... but what's a little disagreement here or there among friends? ... Can you see where I'm going with this?   :)

 

The point I'm trying to make is this:

 

When you set out to "convince" somebody that they are wrong about something, WHAT is it that will actually convince them to change their mind and their heart?  

 

Will it be your pointing to a fault in their logic or in their argument?  

 

Will it be to make some kind of example out of them? ... by whatever means necessary?  ... even possibly by laying a snare for them to wander into?

 

Ok... kind of rhetorical questions, right?  

 

Let me put it a different way:

 

Premise:  I will point out a flaw that I see in your argument

Inference: Because I will point it out as clearly and publicly as I can, not only will everybody see it, but hopefully you will as well.

Conclusion: You will change your mind and heart and we will both finally agree.

 

 

---------  that's it...  :)

 

Am I understanding you?  Is this what you're trying to say?

Edited by theSQUIDSTER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this