\documentclass[letterpaper,twoside]{report}
% \usepackage[width=6in, height=10in, nohead, foot=12pt]{geometry}
\usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{color}
% \usepackage{verse}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{color}

\begin{document}
\begin{sffamily}

\section{Introduction}

The topic today is reason, and its relationship to knowledge. We'll
consider what we mean by truth and knowledge, and catalog and examine
the competing ways people have claimed to arrive at them. In the
context of freethinking and skepticism, I'd like to approach this
matter with an emphasis on the fundamental differences between faith
and reason as paths to truth and knowledge.

We'll look at the history of the emergence of the modern rational
skeptical approach with its requirement for supporting physical
evidence, and its struggle against faith based systems even today.

Finally, we'll consider the proper forms logic takes, as well as
logical fallacies. We'll consider the difference between dialectic -
the cooperative activity characteristic of academia, which goal is to
seek truth -- and sophistic argumentation -- where the purpose is to
persuade, as with political ideologies, religious systems, and
advertising.

The theme will be that scientific skepticism -- ``the practice of
questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and
have reproducibility.'' -- has been one of the greatest ideas humanity
has ever conceived, comparable to such greats as justice and
guaranteed personal freedoms. Scientific skepticism combines
skepticism, the idea that all claims should be questioned, with
rationalism, the idea that reason is a path to knowledge, and
empiricism -- the idea that knowledge is derived from
sense-experience, that is, by observing and experiencing nature, and
looking to nature to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses.

Thales to Galileo: rational skeptical philosophy to empirical science 

In the West, rational skepticism was first introduced by the ancient
Greek philosophers, whose skepticism about the claims that natural
events were punishments from capricious gods led to free speculation
about reality. Thales (624 BC -- 546 BC) suggested that everything was
a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of
existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his
willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking
the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The
more profound implication was that man might be capable of
understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible
rules that he might discover.

The questioning of dogma and the application of reason was a huge leap
forward. But rational skepticism without empiricism, which is the
appeal to reality as the arbiter of truth, is as sterile as
religion. The pronouncements of Aristotle, such as the one that
heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, were also taken on
faith, and were not tested with actual heavy and light objects until
the time of Galileo, who added the element of empiricism to the
matter. Galileo was therefore not just a rationalist and philosopher
like Thales or Aristotle, but an early scientist.

Thus we see that truth is not a function of reason alone, but of
reason applied to experience, which in the sciences is usually called
observation, experimentation, data collection, hypothesis testing, and
the like.

\section{Truth, fact, and knowledge}

Let's begin by considering what we mean by truth, fact, and
knowledge. What are they? I would define them like this: Truth is the
quality that facts possess, with facts being defined as linguistic
strings that accurately map a portion of reality. A fact therefore
allows us to make an accurate prediction of how we will experience
reality under certain circumstances. This is information that allows
us to explain, predict, and at other times control our physical
reality. Knowledge is a collection of facts

Here's an example of a fact -- one that borrows from the map metaphor
almost literally: If you travel south from the carretera on Colon, you
will pass the Ajijic plaza on your left, and can proceed a few blocks
further until you reach the pier and the lake, at which point you can
turn right and walk the malecon. This linguistic string captures some
of the geometry of the streets and other structures in the village,
that is, it accurately depicts a small piece of physical reality. It
allows you and me to predict what will happen if we walk south on that
part of Colon.

Like other facts, it allows us to manipulate ourselves or our
environment to control experience. If we choose to walk the malecon
when standing on the corner of Colon and the carretera, knowing this
fact allows us to be on the malecon in a few minutes.

If we modify the linguistic stream, as by changing south to north or
right to left, we have an erroneous statement, a non-fact, false
knowledge, and a non-truth. If we choose our path based on this
information -- this map -- we will not accomplish our goal.

\section{Pure reason, syllogism, and dialectic}

\textbf{Pure reason} gave us mathematics and formal logic, which is
best known through \textbf{syllogism}: If all men are mortal, and
Socrates is a man, then Socrates must be mortal. This is mathematical
in a sense. If C, Socrates, is contained in B, the set of all men, and
B, the set of all men is contained in A, the set of all mortal things,
then C, Socrates, is contained in A, the set of all mortal
things. This is a valid argument even all men are not mortal, and even
if Socrates is not a man. The conditional syllogism, which contains
words if and then, if done properly, generates a conclusion that must
be true because of its form. It wouldn't matter if all men actually
were mortal. The conclusion is valid because of the form of the
syllogism. It is only claiming that IF all men are mortal, THEN …

If we change the form slightly to All men are mortal, Socrates is a
man, therefore Socrates is mortal -- that is, if we remove the if-then
language -- we are making claims about reality that might or might not
be true. Even if the form of the argument is perfect, if the premises
are untrue, so is the conclusion. We say the form of an argument is
\textbf{valid} whenever the conclusions are true of the premises are
true, and that the argument is \textbf{sound} when we know that the
premises are true.

For the arguer to convince the listener, every argument must begin
with shared premises. If our premises are unshared, as would be the
case one of us believes that there is a god, but not the other, we can
make no progress. We must go back as far as necessary to find our last
shared premises, and work forward from there if we are to make
progress together.

This is the process called \textbf{dialectic} -- the cooperative effort of
people of different opinions who are trying to discover truths by
presenting in \textbf{good faith} that which each finds to be a compelling
argument. What is meant by good faith disputation is bringing \textbf{open
mindedness} to the discussion, that is, the willingness to be convinced
by a compelling argument. Each party hears the other's
counterarguments, and if both are acting in good faith, each is
considering those counterarguments on their merit. The one who
benefits most is not the one that does the convincing, but the one who
has been enlightened.

Good faith disputation begins with sound premises and proceeds forward
according to valid laws of logic to whatever conclusion the process
leads. There is a bad faith variation that begins with an unproven
premise, then reverse engineers an argument that appears to lead to
what is being shown as a conclusion, but is actually an unproven
premise. We can call this a \textbf{pseudo-conclusion.}

\section{Ontology}

The branch of philosophy called ontology considers the nature of
reality -- what exists -- and what can exist, or possibility.

Let's define reality\textbf{} as the set of things that actually exist, where
\textbf{existence} means persistence through a span of time in a
location. Being and existence are synonymous and interchangeable. A
thing is said to exist if it can at least in principle be detected,
that is, if under the right circumstances, we can interact with it --
if we can cause it to change, or it can change something in us or do
something detectable to us. If we postulate the existence of something
which cannot even in principle be detected, be affected, or be the
cause of an effect in something that can be detected, we are
describing something that is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

Possibility refers to that which may or may not be the case now, in
the past, and/or in the future, something that need not actually
exist. There are two very distinct states that can be called possible:
[1] things that are known to be possible because they are known to
have happened, and [2] those called possible because it is not
possible to declare them impossible yet.

\section{Epistemology}

Now we'll switch gears from the nature of reality back to the nature
of knowledge about it.

The branch of philosophy that examines knowledge, what it is, and how
we come by it, is called epistemology. The central epistemic terms
analogous to reality, existence, and possibility from ontology are
truth, fact, and knowledge. There are four methods claimed to be paths
to knowledge.

\begin{enumerate}

\item  As we noted, some knowledge such as mathematics and the rules of
formal logic is arrived at through pure reason, which is called
rational knowledge. We know that there is no such thing as a married
bachelor without getting up out of our armchair to survey the marital
status of others once we understand what ``married'' and ``bachelor''
mean.

One of the fundamental axioms of thought is \textbf{the law of
non-contradiction,} which says that a thing cannot be two mutually
exclusive things or in two mutually exclusive states at the same
time. You cannot be both married and unmarried in the same sense of
the word at the same time. The rationalist tradition in philosophy is
best represented by the works of such giants as Descartes, Leibniz,
Kant, and Spinoza. Not surprisingly, Descartes, also invented analytic
geometry, and Leibniz calculus (Newton also invented calculus
independent of Newton)

\item At times, we claim to know things through experience, that is
experiencially, or empirically -- the basis of the school called
\textbf{empiricism.} We know what hunger is because we have felt it. We
understand what red is because we have seen it. This is private or
subjective experience. We also know that when we water a seed under
certain circumstances, a plant will grow, which is public
knowledge. Knowledge acquired through experience is called empirical
knowledge, and is roughly synonymous with evidence. The philosophical
tradition of empiricism is best represented by the philosophers
Berkeley, Locke and Hume.

\item At other times we claim to know things in our ``bones'', that is for
reasons that we cannot articulate. We just know. It just is. We call
such claims intuitions, and the claim that intuition is a third path
to knowledge \textbf{intuitionism.}

Instincts fit into this category. So do the axioms of the
rationalistic formal system, the atomic, unprovable assumptions from
which all derived theorems arise. ``It just is'' may seem like a shaky
foundation for a theory of knowledge, but a little thought will reveal
that the rationalist and empiricist traditions are founded on
axiomatic intuitions as well. The syllogisms we looked about Socrates
and the mathematical relationships they embody -- $if A < B \; and \; B < C,\;
then \; A < C$ -- are axiomatic truths, as is $x + 0 = x.$

The belief that there is an objective reality outside of our heads,
is the basis of empiricism: Though an irresistible intuition, is not
demonstrable or derivable from simpler truths -- not from reason, nor
from experience. We can't prove or derive any of these ideas starting
with more atomic ideas. We ``just know'' that they are correct:

Here's a comment from Einstein: ``The intellect has little to do on the
road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it
intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't
know how or why.''

Thus intuitionalism is the idea that the fundamental truths and
principles of reason and experience are known directly by
intuition. Ethical truth, which is more subjective, is also founded on
ideas supported by claims no stronger than ``It's just true.'' We simply
know that the highest good is the one that maximizes satisfaction and
minimizes misery for the greatest number.

\item And finally, fideism, which is the claim that faith is a path to
knowledge, The primary example of fideism is the religious claim that
the faith in unseen gods and the authoritative nature of scripture is
also a path to truth and knowledge -- just like reason and experience
is.
\end{enumerate}

Religious speakers often invoke phrases like ``transcendent truth'',
``objective truth'', and ``absolute truth'' with the assumption that such
things exist out there. We are told that there are truths inaccessible
to reason and the senses, that these religious truths transcend reason
and experience, and that these truths are inaccessible to man's
limited mind except through faith in revelation.

That is the belief of the religious. To the skeptic, it is reason
applied to experience that is the foundation of all useful ideas thus
far. This is the great divide between the traditions of faith and
rational skepticism, each of which claims to be a path to truth.

\section{Religious faith versus justified belief}


Religious faith is unsupported and therefore unjustified certitude,
that is, belief without sufficient evidentiary support, possibly even
in the face of contradictory evidence. It is absolute. Logically
speaking, it is equivalent to treating a hypothesis as a premise,
axiom or theorem. By definition, however valid the subsequent
reasoning, everything that is derived from a false belief is also
false, and the argument for it unsound.

\textbf{Justified belief,} by contrast, is confidence, belief or trust based on
prior experience. Its degree is commensurate with the quality and
quantity of evidence in support of the belief, being more certain as
supporting data mounts, but always tentative and amenable to
modification pending the arrival of contradictory evidence. Justified
belief is also mistakenly conflated with religious faith, as when we
have faith that the car will start again tomorrow like it has the last
200 times it was tested, Clearly, belief as in gods is not the same
things as the belief that the car will start again the next time it is
tested just as it has the last 200 times.

\section{Open mindedness and faith}

I alluded to a definition of open-mindedness as the willingness to
consider an argument impartially, and to be convinced if it is
compelling. Faith based thinkers often accuse unbelievers of closed
mindedness, but what they are calling closed mindedness is merely the
unwillingness to accept as true that which has not been
demonstrated. It is faith that closes the mind, and the process is
called a confirmation bias. Consider these quotations:

\begin{enumerate}
\item The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether
creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, ``What would
change your minds?'' Scientist Bill Nye answered, ``Evidence.'' Young
Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered ``Nothing. I'm a Christian.'' Ham
then went on to add, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed
evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid
if it contradicts the scriptural record.''

\item ``If in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence
that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't
think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a
situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent
circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due
diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in
fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the
witness of the Holy Spirit tells me.''  -- William Lane Craig
\end{enumerate}

\section{Is faith a path to knowledge?}


I think that we can immediately rule out the claim that faith, though
extolled by some as a virtue or a path to knowledge. What is faith but
the willingness to believe without sufficient evidence? No method that
can be invoked to support both an idea and its polar opposite can be a
means of generating truth. The arbiter of truth has to be reason
applied to experience. Experience will not confirm both of two
conflicting possibilities. It will rule at least one of them
out. Faith can advocate for either, or even both at once.

\section{Evidence versus proof}


From Wiki: ``Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in
support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The
strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the
truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely
consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other,
contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.''

As is often claimed, absence of proof is not proof of absence. But
absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. If nobody
remembers seeing me at work, and my time card wasn't stamped, should I
be surprised if I am not paid for the day?

\section{The essential role of physical evidence in the determination of truth.}

Nothing can be said to be true that cannot be shown to be true. No
statement can be said to be a fact without it being about a part of
physical reality that can be experienced or has been
experienced. Faith does violence to this notion of truth. It rips it
from its anchor of evidence and experience, which would be a fatal
blow were we to permit it.

\section{AntiCitizenX defines truth}

Consider this passage from on the subjects of what is real and true
from an Internet persona who calls himself AnticitizenX:

``The reason why any of us believes anything at all is so that we can
eventually use that information as a guide for our actions. That's
why, sooner or later, everyone has to start measuring the truth of a
belief by its power to help us exercise decisions under the
expectation of desirable outcomes. Decisions based on true beliefs
will therefore manifest themselves in the form of controlled,
predictable experiences, while decisions based on false beliefs will
eventually fail in that goal. It's a brutal, pragmatic view of truth
to be sure, but it's also the only one with any functional connection
to the real world.''

``Truth has no meaning divorced from any eventual decision making
process. The whole point of belief itself is to inform decisions and
drive actions. Actions then influence events in the external world,
and those effects lead to objective consequences. Take away any of
these elements and truth immediately loses all relevance.''

``We should expect similar decisions made under similar circumstances
to lead to similar outcomes. Pragmatism says that the ultimate measure
of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce
expected results. If an idea is true, it can be used in the real world
to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea
turned out to be false. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true
proposition is the capacity to inform decisions under the expectation
of desirable consequences.''

``All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make
decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man
has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is
true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is
false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity
to inform decisions and produce results or you don't. If you agree,
then we can have a conversation. And if we disagree about some belief,
we have a means to decide the issue.''

``If this is not how your epistemology works -- how you define truth
-- then we can't have a discussion.''

Sam Harris has said something similar: 

``If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to
provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic,
what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of
logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if
someone says, ``Well, that's not how I choose to think about water''?
All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share
those values, the conversation is over.''

AnticitizenX goes on to add:

``How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No matter what
answer you give, literally nothing changes. No decision you will ever
make in your entire lifetime can ever be influenced by the answer to
this question. If nothing changes even in principle with respect to
some proposition being true or false, then the distinction between
them just vanishes.''

\section{Compartmentalization}
 

Critics of faith are asked, ``If faith and evidence based reasoning
are antithetical as we claim, how it is possible that men of faith
like Newton and Faraday made such huge contributions to man's
understanding of his natural world?''

The claim by rational skeptics is that wherever they differ, faith
will take you to a different place than reason applied to
evidence. That is, faith based thoughts alter (in my opinion,
contaminate) evidence and reason based thought wherever a faith based
belief alters the path that reason applied to evidence would have
taken it.

For example, the rules of addition are based in reason, and there is
only one correct answer for the sum of a column of numbers. A person
of faith can add numbers correctly and according to the rules of
reason, but must not use a step not grounded in reason if he hopes to
achieve a correct answer. That is, he can add accurately -- but only
insofar as his faith doesn't inform his mathematics. If he chooses to
take a leap of faith not supported by the rules of arithmetic, what
happens? He goes astray at that precise moment.

The answer regarding these scientists is that they were able to
compartmentalize their faith and leave it outside the door when they
were working. It did not and could not have affected their
conclusions.

For example, living on the cusp of modernity as he did, Newton had a
foot in both worlds -- reason and faith based superstitions. He
explored mathematics and physics as well as astrology.. The math and
physics, which, as I mentioned, included the invention of calculus as
well as the first mathematical science, celestial mechanics, were
generated without faith based ideas injected into them. That is why
they worked, why we still admire Newton, a why people with no faith
based ideas such as skeptical scientists can still understand them and
confirm that they are accurate. They work, and are substantiated by
their utility. The laws of the motions of planetary bodies unify the
observations from which they were derived and allow predictions of
future observations.

Newton also wrote on astrology, which was faith based, was sterile,
was unsubstantiated by any evidence, unified no observations, made no
valid predictions, and is ignored today. What is remarkable is that
Newton was able to do both.

And stated earlier, faith allows one to claim as true whatever he
likes, which is why each faith based system is different from the
others, and why none of them, including nonreligious faith based
systems such as astrology and phrenology, have produced any ideas of
lasting value.

The method based on reason applied to evidence leads us to just one
astronomy, just one physics, and just one chemistry -- not multiple
denominations of any of them. Each has had great practical value. As
one anonymous Internet writer noted,

``Can you explain why there are several hundred thousand gods accepted
by different religious people, but only one periodic table accepted by
different scientists?''

\section{Pseudoscience versus the Scientific Method}


``Homeopaths, UFO and ESP advocates … global warming denialists -- all of
these people look at the same evidence as we do and come to different
conclusion. Why? Because there are factors other than reason at play:
emotional commitment and confirmation bias. Are they irrational? Of
course!'' -- Jerry Coyne

Earlier, I alluded to reverse engineering an argument -- that is
beginning with a premise, and constructing a plausible but fallacious
(or specious) argument -- one that appears to lead to the premise as
if it were a conclusion. I called such an apparent conclusion a
pseudo-conclusion.

When this process is applied to that which is being made to appear to
be science, we call it \textbf{pseudo-science.} The intelligent design
(ID) hypothesis is a good example: Authentic science, like authentic
reason, begins with facts -- data in the one case, accurate premises
in the other -- and proceeds forward according to valid and
consistently applied rules to arrive at conclusions that are as sound
as the process.

Pseudoscience, like the reverse engineered arguments, also begins with
an idea that it wishes to establish as truth or fact, and selects the
experiments that it is hoped will support it, eschews those that would
falsify or disconfirm the desired findings, and evaluates the data
with a confirmation bias. This process is radically different from
science, and in the case of ID, has been as sterile as the assumptions
guiding it are thought to be.

Pseudoscience also lacks the vetting mechanism of authentic
science. Consider the scientific method, which now is understood to
exist at two levels

The first -- the method used within the laboratory (or observatory) to
generate and analyze data -- observation, hypothesis formation,
experiment, measurement, analysis, hypothesis modification, etc. --
which I call the micro-scientific method, and which results may be
inaccurate and overturned, is just the beginning of the larger
``macro-scientific method.'' The next study may contradict the last
one. What then?

Reliable science is vetted far beyond what is required by the
``micro''-scientific method. Studies are subject to peer review before
and after publication, where the interested scientific community can
comment. The studies are often repeated and confirmed, or in some
cases, disconfirmed and errors identified. The results may be used to
develop technology that may be used to predict and at times control
nature, which, when it happens, confirms the validity of the
study. Multiple related studies are brought together to generate
theories, from which previously unexpected predictions are made,
which, if confirmed, further validating the findings. The theories may
suggest new avenues of previously unconsidered exploration, which in
turn may bear fruit -- additional useful technology or suggest even
more areas of investigation, further vetting the validity the
discoveries. With time, additional confirming observations using
unrelated techniques are added, as with Evolutionary theory, where
21st century DNA sequencing techniques arrive at the same conclusions
as earlier paleontological and embryological studies. After years of
such vetting, over which no contradictory observations having been
made, only then is it fully vetted science. Information that gets as
far as what is described above simply can't be overturned, just
expanded.

\section{Logical Fallacy}

\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_fallacies}

\url{http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/}

\url{http://www.logicalfallacies.info/}

Now we're going to look at some of the ways that reason can be
misapplied or even deliberately subverted.

\textbf{Sophistry} for our purposes is defined as the deliberate
manipulation of words to create a false impression using unproven
premises and/or invalid arguments -- logical fallacies -- that appear
to lead to a conclusion, but don't actually support the conclusion
offered.

Or, ``What makes you think that your god wants you to not bake wedding
cakes for same sex couples?'' ``What makes me think that? Jesus. He
said marriage is between a man and a woman.''


Post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- a Latin phrase for ``after this,
therefore, because of this.'' The term refers to a logical fallacy
that because two events occurred in succession, the former event
caused the latter event. Correlation does not equal
causation. ``Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently
when they grow up.'' But does television programming cause violence or
do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Or
perhaps a third entity is the cause of violence in children and on
TV. Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick
after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.)
Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from
China.

Proving a negative (or non-existence) -- when an arguer cannot provide
the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it
doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't
visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special
limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain
items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or
non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does
not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the
claims.

Red herring -- argument given in response to another argument, which
is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of
argument. an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert
attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to ``win'' an
argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another
topic. Also called deflection. Consider the recent church shootings in
Charleston SC. The effort was made repeatedly to deflect the
discussion from guns and racism to mental illness. See also irrelevant
conclusion.

Irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi) -- the informal fallacy of
presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but
fails to address the issue in question. More colloquially, it is also
known as missing the point. Maher: ``If you had been born in Pakistan,
you wouldn't be believing in Jesus Christ.'' Scarborough: ``Well,
Bill, that's your opinion.'' Whether Maher's argument is his opinion
or not is irrelevant and does not address the argument made. ``1984
before 1987''

Ad hominem -- Latin for ``to the man.'' Attacking the arguer instead
of the argument.  ``Christopher Hitchins said that what can be offered
without evidence can be rejected without evidence? So what? That guy
was a drunk''

Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) -- comparing an opponent
or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a
position with one that is universally reviled. See Godwin's law)


Slippery slope: a fallacy in which it is asserted that some event Y
must inevitably follow from another event X without any rational
argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event
in question.. ``If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually
the government will control how we die.''

Special pleading -- a form of fallacious argument whereby two sets of
standards are applied to two separate circumstances, one called an
exception, with insufficient justification for the second case
deserving a separate standard. How can there be anything at all
without a first cause, which must be God. What caused God? God exists
outside of time, therefore always was. ``You don't get to use the
science you like to invalidate the science you don't like.''

\section{Transcendence }


``I have more than faith. I've explained that to you, but you have a
closed mind that insists there's natural proof for a supernatural
being.''

What does it mean to claim that an idea transcends reason or physical
reality? Some will claim that the tenets of their faith transcend
reason, and that their god transcends science. If true, this would
excuse such people from the burdens of demonstrating truth and reality
as I have just outlined them. But is this valid? Faith doesn't
transcend reason. It sidesteps it, and insisting that the rest of
argumentation needs to obey the laws of reason, but that arguments
based on faith do not, is a form of a fallacy we will look at later
called Special Pleading..

Calling a realm, its denizens, or its laws ``supernatural'' is a
similar instance of trying to claim transcendence for these alleged
alternate realities, that is, Special Pleading. Why should anything
that exists be excluded from nature with a special label like
``supernatural.'' Recall that a working definition of reality was the
collection of objects, spaces, and forces capable of interacting with
some or all other elements of reality. If there is a god in a heaven
with the power to modify aspects of our universe, then that god and
its power are a part of nature that, like all of the rest of reality,
is causally connected to the part of reality that we call our
universe. If it can affect us, we can experience it, meaning that we
can detect it. To call it real, but transcending detection, is double
talk. Faith transcends reason and the supernatural transcends the
natural the way criminals transcend the law.

If a religion makes a claim such as the one that prayer works, that is
a scientific claim, that is, testable and if false, falsifiable.

Straw Man Fallacy -- an argument based on misrepresentation of an
opponent's position; creating a false or made up scenario and then
attacking it. Evolutionists think that everything came about by random
chance. Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which
may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on
random chance. ``Have you learned yet that 1984 is prior to 1987?''

Buck Crick wrote: Edwards v. Aguillard was rendered in 1987. ID went
public as a scientific theory no later than 1984. 1984 is prior to
1987. Therefore, it is impossible that ID was motivated by a desire to
circumvent Edwards.

IANS wrote: Why tell me? Did you think that I claimed that ID was
``motivated by a desire to circumvent Edwards?'' I claimed that it was
used for that beginning in 1987. ID is as least as old as Genesis. It
was motivated millennia ago by a desire to promote belief in Jehovah,
who later morphed into Jehovah-Jesus.

Bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because
many people believe it or practice it. Most people used to believe
that the earth was flat and motionless with the sun orbiting it every
day. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of
disease.

Argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by
appealing to numbers rather than facts and reasons. ``It's common
sense'' or“ Most of the world believes in a god''

Appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): -- We've
always done it this way

Begging the question (petitio principii) -- assuming in one's
proposition that which one aims to prove: ``We must encourage our
youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.'' Assumes religion and
worship actually produce moral behavior.

Circular reasoning -- stating in one's proposition that which one aims
to prove. ``God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists
because God influenced it.''

Loaded questions -- embodies an assumption that, if answered,
indicates an implied agreement. ``Have you stopped beating your wife
yet?''

No true Christian (or No true Scotsman): an informal logical fallacy,
an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with
an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy excludes the specific
case without reference to any objective rule. Example: Many Christians
in history have started wars. Reply: Well no true Christian would ever
start a war. Josh Duggar wasn't Really a Christian When He Molested
Those Girls''

\url{http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/25/ray-comfort-josh-duggar-wasnt-really-a-christian-when-he-molested-those-girls/}

Composition fallacy -- when the conclusion of an argument depends on
an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or
vice versa. ``Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains
consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness.'' ``Americans
like hamburgers. Bob is an American, so he must like burgers.'' The
latter also called Fallacy of division. ``If we are nothing but atoms
swirling through empty space, there can be no such thing as morality''
is as valid as saying that if Shakespeare is nothing but letters,
punctuation and spaces, his works can have no more meaning than a
keyboard.''

Secular humanists and materialists think humans are ``meat bags''

``No we don't.'' That's the reductionist fallacy -- a fallacy pf
composition. Sure, a man may be a skinful of meat, perhaps to a
cannibal. He is also a pool of chemicals, as well as a collection of
subatomic particles. He is also a piece of a population. He exists at
all of these scales, and exhibits different properties in
each. Secular Humanism says that most importantly, he is also a man
with intrinsic value. Christianity says that his flesh is corrupt, and
is soul is sin infected. 

\url{http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/TEDTVO26B5QGP1RQ8/post32146}

Confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to
a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports
what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes
their beliefs. If someone believes in the power of fortune telling,
the believer will notice the few hits while ignoring the misses. Also
called antiprocessing. See ``Morton's Demon''

Equivocation fallacy -- a fallacy based on using two different
meanings of a word in the same argument, as when equating faith in
science with faith in a religion, or faith that one will get to heaven
with faith that one's car will start again in the morning. ``Banks are
a good place to put your money, Rivers have banks, therefore, rivers
are a good place to put your money''

Earlier, I defined religious faith as unsupported or insufficiently
supported certitude, possibly even in the face of contradictory
evidence. Logically speaking, it is equivalent to treating a
hypothesis as an axiom or theorem, which is then used as a premise for
subsequent thought. Obviously, everything that follows is unsound.

Justified belief, by contrast, which is times also called faith, as in
having faith that the car will start again tomorrow like it has the
last 200 times it was tried, is confidence, belief or trust based on
experience, that is evidence. Its degree is commensurate with the
quality and quantity of evidence in support of the belief, being more
certain as supporting data mounts, but always tentative and amenable
to modification pending the arrival of contradictory evidence.

By calling these both faith, the religious apologist is armed to
commit an equivocation fallacy, which is the basis of much of the
argument for teaching creationism in school. The argument is that
secularist have faith in Darwin's theory, which makes evolutionary
science a religion, and its inclusion on the science curriculum in
public schools while excluding creationism is discriminatory in an
unjustified way.

Excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the
extremes. ``If you don't believe me, you're calling me a liar.''

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white
fallacy) -- two alternative statements are held to be the only
possible options, when in reality there are more. Pascal's Wager:
``Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. If you
gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.''

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) -- refers to the
selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way
that distorts the source's intended meaning

Fallacy of scale: ``in the big picture, when it's all over, nothing
that we do matters.''

Half truths (suppressed evidence) -- A statement usually intended to
deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate
description. ``You believe that life arose and developed by random
chance.'' This description of abiogenesis (chemical evolution) and
biological evolution omits the effects of competition and natural
selection, which are directed, not random. Also called Quote mining
and cherry picking, as when one theist points to a scripture that
resonates with him psychologically, another to a contradictory
scripture, and each dismissed the citations of the other according to
some ad hoc rule.

Hasty generalization (or Over generalization) -- jumping to an
unjustified conclusion. ``The universe is here, so there must be a
god.'' Buck Crick wrote: ``Take Piltdown Man, the famous Sussex
fossil. In 1912, amateur archaeologist and premier forager Charles
Dawson discovered the link between ape and man -- Piltdown Man …
Piltdown man was finally proven to be a hoax in 1953. Not a mistake --
a hoax. Orangutan jawbone, human skull.''  Stilgar: ``Dishonest
scientists is the reason many people don't trust them, and laugh their
asses off when someone quotes a 'recent study.'''

Statistics of small numbers -- ``My parents smoked all their lives and
they never got cancer.'' Simply because someone can point to a few
favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances. Byron Thomas
is 19, black, a freshman at the University of South Carolina Beaufort
and a proud Southerner. He hung a Confederate flag in his dorm room
window …“I know it's kinda weird because I'm black. When I look at
this flag, I just don't see racism. I see pride, respect. Southern
pride, that's what I see.''

\url{http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/black-student-defends-his-confederate-flag/}

Texas sharpshooter fallacy -- is committed when differences in data
are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning a
false conclusion is inferred.[1] This fallacy is the
philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons
problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is
related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in
human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.The
name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some gunshots at the
side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster
of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics: ``The majority of people in
the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of
them.''; ``Christianity is growing in America, from 151M in 1990 to 173M
in 2008'' Of course, the total adult population grew from 175M to
228M, meaning the fraction self-identifying as Christian fell from
86.2\% to 76.0\%
 
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) -- argument in which evidence
presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other
(often greater) evidence is demanded.

Non sequitur -from Latin for ``It does not follow.'' An inference or
conclusion that does not follow from established premises or
evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full
moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a
full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other
reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations? ``You cannot do
anything that matters after you die.'' ``I disagree. I believe much
happens after we die, and we can still make a difference.''

Inflation of conflict -- The experts of a field of knowledge disagree
on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore
the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question. Used to
discredit science and scientists.

Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) -- appealing to ignorance
as evidence for something; where the conclusion is based on the
absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. ``We have
no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must
exist. Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or
non-existence

Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) -- using the words
of an ``expert'' or authority as the basis of an argument instead of
using the logic or evidence that supports an argument, as when quoting
Einstein about religion.

Unwarranted assumption fallacy -- The fallacy of unwarranted
assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on
a false premise (implicit or explicit)

Weak analogy -- when an analogy is used to prove or disprove an
argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is,
it is unlike the argument more than it is like it. ``Not believing in
the literal resurrection of Jesus because the Bible has errors and
contradictions, is like denying that the Titanic sank because
eye-witnesses did not agree if the ship broke in half before or after
it sank.''

Thought-terminating cliche -- a commonly used phrase, sometimes
passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal
lack of thought-entertainment, move on to other topics etc. but in any
case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.

Argumentum ad baculum: -- An argument based on an appeal to fear or a
threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam -- A misleading argument used in reliance on
people's ignorance. ``In spite of all the talk, not a single flying
saucer report has been authenticated. We may assume, therefore, there
are not such things as flying saucers.''

Argument from (personal) incredulity -- I cannot imagine how this
could be true, therefore it must be false

Hedging -- using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the
meaning of them later.

Moralistic fallacy -- inferring factual conclusions from purely
evaluative premises in violation of fact--value distinction. For
instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic
fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy
defined below.


\section{Eastern History and faith versus reason}


We discussed the history of the Western intellectual tradition from
Thales and Aristotle to Galileo. What was left out was the Middle Ages
in between, which began with the fall of Rome and the Dark Ages, the
first part of the Middle Ages, also known as the Age of Faith. Galileo
at all come at the beginnings of modernity, which begins with the
Renaissance and morphs into the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason,
immediately following the Middle Ages. With this came the advent of
science and the modern democratic political state with its
church-state separation, limited government, and guaranteed personal
political freedoms.

The Far East had a similar history in the sense that its greatest
philosophers were stymied by had a head start coupling empiricism to
rational skepticism, but never got off the ground developing
science. The reason was

In collection of essays attributed to Mo Tze (470-391 BC) and his
disciples, who lived a century-and-a-half after Thales, a test was
proposed for every doctrine: ``Question its basis. Ask if it can be
verified by the sights and senses of common people. Ask how it is to
be applied and if it will benefit the greatest number.''

Science and free inquiry require the light of free expression to
flourish, and rely on the unfettered questioning of authority and the
open exchange of ideas. This was lost. A few hundred years after Mo
Tze's death, Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor and unifier of China, and
unifier of China, took power. Those that invoked history to criticize
the present had their family executed. The works of MoTze and
Confucius and other philosophers were destroyed by fire. Scholars that
resisted and tried to preserve the forbidden books were buried alive.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson produced a fascinating video on this subject, and
looked at a few different times and places in history where free
inquiry flourished, and then was extinguished. He cited what he called
naming rights as evidence that this had happened. When he was
discussing the ancient Greeks, he noted that they had gotten to name
the constellation. In our time and place, he commented on the names of
the heaviest elements, including Americium, Berkelium, Californium,
Einsteinium, Fermium, Lawrencium and Seaborgium -- each honoring an
American scientist or location. From his video comes this passage
discussing the Arab enlightenment in our Middle Ages, and its eventual
demise when the spirit of free inquiry succumbed to faith based
authoritarianism:

``There was this particularly fertile period [between 800 and 1100 AD]
when the intellectual center of the world was Baghdad. It was
completely open to all visitors, all travelers -- Jews, Christians,
doubters which today we might call atheists -- they were all there
exchanging ideas. It was in that period that we had the advances in
engineering, biology, medicine, and mathematics. Our numerals are
called Arabic numerals. Do you ever stop and think about that? They
create an entire field called algebra, itself an Arabic
word. Algorithm is an Arabic word. All of this is traceable to this
300 year period, So they had naming rights.''

``Of all the stars that have names, two-thirds of them have Arabic
names. While the constellations are Greek and Roman, the stars' names
are Arabic. How does this happen?  How do you get stars named with
Arabic names? It happens because there was this particularly fertile
period -- this 300 year period [about 800-1100 AD]- when the
intellectual center of the world was Baghdad. It was completely open
to all visitors -- all travelers. They were all there exchanging
ideas, and it was that period where we had advances in engineering,
biology, medicine, and mathematics. Our numerals are called Arabic
numerals! They created a whole field called algebra — an Arabic
word. All of this is traceable to this 300 year period.''

``Ibn al-Hazen (965-1040 AD) was the first person ever to set down the
rules of science. He created an error-correcting mechanism, a
systematic and relentless way to sift out misconceptions in our
thinking. ‘Finding truth is difficult and the road to it is rough. As
seekers after truth, you will be wise to withhold judgment and not
simply put your trust in the writings of the ancients. You must
question and critically examine those writings from every side. You
must submit only to argument and experiment and not to the sayings of
any person. For every human being is vulnerable to all kinds of
imperfection. As seekers after truth, we must also suspect and
question our own ideas as we perform our investigations, to avoid
falling into prejudice or careless thinking. Take this course, and
truth will be revealed to you.'''

``And then, something happened. 'The 12th century brought the
influence of the scholar al-Ghazali Al Ghazali (1058-1111 AD), and out
of his work you get the philosophy that mathematics is the work of the
Devil. Nothing good can come of that philosophy. With that, combined
with other sort-of philosophical codifications of what Islam was and
would become, the entire intellectual foundation of that enterprise
collapsed and it has not recovered since.' ''

July 15, 2015

\end{sffamily}
\end{document}