Marxism or postmodernism fallacy?

GoblinCookie writes:

You might not like it, but the logic of those systems is perfectly valid.  Unless you want to be a gullible moron, you have to accept that sometimes people do use their power to make stuff up and that they can make it seem objectively true. 

2+2=5 is true.  The assumption that 2+2 is true is based upon certain unspoken assumptions about the nature of the numbers you are adding up. 

In many cases two objects added with two objects makes a fifth object without the original four objects ceasing to exist.  So 2+2 does equal 5 in that case. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

[To GoblinCookie]

2+2=5 is true.  The assumption that 2+2 is true is based upon certain unspoken assumptions about the nature of the numbers you are adding up. 

No it isn't. 2 + 2 = 4; it's tautological and therefore must be true.

In many cases two objects added with two objects makes a fifth object without the original four objects ceasing to exist.  So 2+2 does equal 5 in that case. 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

That’s a cool word: pseudoskepticism.  I will put that in my back pocket.  

I read that postmodernism is marked by radical skepticism which is not the same as scientific skepticism.  The former is skepticism of the whole enterprise of modern science and the latter is skepticism of non scientific claims.  I guess pseudoskepticism would be like skepticism of the most evidently true scientific conclusions like the speed of light or skepticism that modern science describes reality at all.  

I am a scientific realist meaning that I believe that modern science accurately describes the real world and is better than other ontological systems.  Radical constructivism arose out of postmodernism and says that modern science is just another metanarrative no more accurate than indigenous shamanism.  

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Pseudoskepticism also arises when the skeptic, presented with evidence, fails to refute it or accept it, but insists on disbelieving the claim anyway (e.g. climate change deniers who say "release the data", then refuse to accept its obvious conclusions).

Pseudoskeptics often claim they're just "taking things to their logical conclusions" or "being skeptical", when really, they're being obscurantist (knowledge-denying).

Unfortunately, when you deconstruct the very foundations of knowledge - whether empirical or rational - on their spurious grounds, you cannot establish any claims yourself, resulting in a rather amusing scenario where someone can say "there's no objective progress" while claiming that say, greater racial diversity in the political institutions of a society is "progress".

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

How do tautologies work?

I have friends who say that all white people are racists.  If that’s true is it tautological to say that Tom is a white racist, because one would know that Tom is racist just by saying he is white.  Saying Tom is white is the same as saying that Tom is a racist.  

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

How do tautologies work?

A tautology is a tautological statement (heh). All it is is a statement that cannot be false - it is true in every possible interpretation and sense. E.g. "the red bike is red", or "the deceased is no longer living."

I have friends who say that all white people are racists.

I'd normally just call this a factual error, however, it depends on how they defined their terms. If they've defined 'racist' such that it includes all white people solely because of their perceived race, regardless of their real behaviour, this would just be an incongruous definition. It is useless, because it has no descriptive power. The core of racism, as typically understood, is prejudice or discrimination based on race - if you're not involved in these, you aren't a "racist" (though there could still be 'systemic' racism, if racial inequalities were caused by racists of previous generations and became entrenched). Yet, the incongruous definition would include these 'non-racists' too, thus, the definition includes non-examples and becomes ludicrous.

If that’s true is it tautological to say that Tom is a white racist, because one would know that Tom is racist just by saying he is white.  Saying Tom is white is the same as saying that Tom is a racist.  

If white were synonymous with racist, yes - "The white man is racist" would be a tautology. It can be expressed like:

P1) All whites are racist

P2) Tom is white

C) Tom is racist

Sadly for people who wish to use this argument, P1 is false (unless you're an insomniac woke type), so it doesn't work and is thus not tautological.

 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Are tautologies a form of fallacious reasoning?  I think I know what know what Dr Bo would say.  He would say it’s not a fallacy because it’s not an argument.   

The following are if all white people are racist.  

Tom is a racist.  
This is a tautology.

Tom is a racist because he is white.
This is an identity fallacy.

I guess my question is about “Tom is a racist”.  Is this statement by itself a circular argument or question begging?

 

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

 
No it isn't. 2 + 2 = 4; it's tautological and therefore must be true.

It isn't.  It contains a number of hidden assumptions about the nature of 1s.  That the 1s are not.

Fractals: When adding fractals together the end result is another object without removing the original objects.  So in that case 2+2=5 (sorry Winston); the effect of adding the objects is to create a fifth object made of the other objects that still themselves exist.

Fusables: When adding fusables together, the end result is all objects cease to exist and create a four object.  So in that case 2+2=1.  Water droplets are an example of fusables, if say on a window pane multiple water droplets collide, they create a single larger droplet.

Yet we can count the above things using our normal numbers.  Yet by doing so we have created a contradiction in that the 'ideal numbers' by which we declare basic arithmetical statement to be 'factual' are now actually not same as the real numbers.  That why there is nothing objective or universal about mathematics, it is just another system of language, containing ambiguities like other languages do.

Also like language, 'context matters' in mathematics and it is meaningless without it.

 

E.g. 1 sperm cell + 1 egg may produce triplets, so 1 + 1 = 3...right? Nope. Gestation and giving birth are not a matter of simply adding together two physical objects. It is a complicated biological process involving multiple "divisions" and "fusions" of matter. Thus, the argument relies on a very weak analogy, based on misinterpretation of basic mathematical principles.

Furthermore this wouldn't make sense anyway as you'd get contradictions. In some cases, people only have 2 children - so 1 + 1 = 2, but using the above logic, it also = 3...right?

So now, 1 + 1 = both 2 and 3...which cannot be possible...the exact  same  input cannot result in two different outputs (unless output is totally random). Unless of course, you wish to argue that 2 = 3...which means that 2 * 2 is the same as 3 * 3...which means that 4 also = 9. 

You can quickly see how this no longer makes sense. 

Your problems there are because making further unspoken assumptions about time.  The actual result of adding 1 egg and 1 sperm is actually Infinite sperm+Infinite eggs; there aren't any logical contradictions in the outcome, it just isn't a finite amount at all. 

The outcome of reproducing creatures gametes is an infinite number of gametes, since those new creatures themselves produce gametes that can create any number of future creates with their own gametes.

 

This sounds like pseudoskepticism and will likely self-destruct when it attempts to establish any claims about the nature of knowledge. For while your statement ("people do use their power to make stuff up") is true, I don't see how it relates to mathematics. 

Pseudoskepticism?  To be 'pseudo' something implies you are pretending to be something that you are not.  The word you are surely looking for is Ultraskepticism, scepticism taken to such a degree as to destroy the foundations of knowledge in a slippery slope fallacy sense.  I didn't engage in such however, I merely suggested that powerful people can make their baseless opinions seem to be objective, I did not even say it was common or normative, so seems like you are using the slippery slope there.

It relates to mathematics because mathematics is language.  Languages are a social construct and the powerful control society.

The primary ideological trick of modern life is to take subjective judgements, turn them into numbers and then most will take your claims more seriously, as forget that they are ultimately simply subjective judgements because as 'raw' numbers they 'look' more factual.  If you are very cunning you can use of own subjective bias as 'editor' to skew your numbers by eliminating as 'innacurate' all observations that are not what you wish to be the case BEFORE you compile the actual numbers for publication.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

[To GoblinCookie]

It isn't.  It contains a number of hidden assumptions about the nature of 1s.  That the 1s are not.

I don't know what 'hidden assumptions' you're talking about; this comes across as pure speculation. Mathematics works based on rules. The rules result in tautologies. Appealing to fringe cases to try and "disprove" these laws is meaningless. Thus, it seems like you're merely arguing for the sake of it, even if it means giving credence to complete nonsense (like 2+2=5).

Fractals: When adding fractals together the end result is another object without removing the original objects.  So in that case 2+2=5 (sorry Winston); the effect of adding the objects is to create a fifth object made of the other objects that still themselves exist.

Fusables: When adding fusables together, the end result is all objects cease to exist and create a four object.  So in that case 2+2=1.  Water droplets are an example of fusables, if say on a window pane multiple water droplets collide, they create a single larger droplet.

I don't understand how 'fractals' relates to your point. All I can see is that they are a topic of interest in mathematics.

In the case of water droplets, say those 'water droplets' have a certain 'volume'. The bigger water droplet formed by their fusion can thus be divided into smaller water droplets of the same size, so you have not gained your point.

If you assume that 2+2=1 this breaks down if we consider another water droplet, of equal size, that falls on the window. The two water droplets would have a certain volume, which would be bigger than that of the single water droplet...unless of course, you assume that the two have the same volume...since 2+2=1...which makes no sense. More of the same liquid = the same volume.

Or, two bowls water at 150ml. That's 150ml + 150ml = 300ml. No, 2+2 is still not 1. 300 is just 150x where x = 2.

Yet we can count the above things using our normal numbers.  Yet by doing so we have created a contradiction in that the 'ideal numbers' by which we declare basic arithmetical statement to be 'factual' are now actually not same as the real numbers.  That why there is nothing objective or universal about mathematics, it is just another system of language, containing ambiguities like other languages do.

The examples you gave failed to prove your point; as I stated above you're appealing to fringe cases to try and argue that a result like 2+2=1 is meaningful, when it isn't. 

Your problems there are because making further unspoken assumptions about time.  The actual result of adding 1 egg and 1 sperm is actually Infinite sperm+Infinite eggs; there aren't any logical contradictions in the outcome, it just isn't a finite amount at all. 

The outcome of reproducing creatures gametes is an infinite number of gametes, since those new creatures themselves produce gametes that can create any number of future creates with their own gametes.

No, I pointed out how absurd and contradictory this logic is. And as I explained before, a simple addition equation cannot model reproduction.

Pseudoskepticism?  To be 'pseudo' something implies you are pretending to be something that you are not.  The word you are surely looking for is Ultraskepticism, scepticism taken to such a degree as to destroy the foundations of knowledge in a slippery slope fallacy sense.  I didn't engage in such however, I merely suggested that powerful people can make their baseless opinions seem to be objective, I did not even say it was common or normative, so seems like you are using the slippery slope there.

Pseudoskepticism as defined covers skepticism taken to unreasonable proportions.

Of course powerful people can make their baseless opinions seem objective; no one is saying that sophistry and fallacies don't exist. In fact, that's the whole point of this website. I also don't see how I committed the slippery slope here, if anything, I just misparsed part of your argument here.

It relates to mathematics because mathematics is language.  Languages are a social construct and the powerful control society.

...

...so the people in power are using maths to control society? What is the relevance of this point again?

 

 

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

 
I don't know what 'hidden assumptions' you're talking about; this comes across as pure speculation. Mathematics works based on rules. The rules result in tautologies. Appealing to fringe cases to try and "disprove" these laws is meaningless. Thus, it seems like you're merely arguing for the sake of it, even if it means giving credence to complete nonsense (like 2+2=5).

The hidden assumptions are the nature of the abstract 1 that you are using in your abstract mathematical rule-statement. 

 
I don't understand how 'fractals' relates to your point. All I can see is that they are a topic of interest in mathematics.

In the case of water droplets, say those 'water droplets' have a certain 'volume'. The bigger water droplet formed by their fusion can thus be divided into smaller water droplets of the same size, so you have not gained your point.

If you assume that 2+2=1 this breaks down if we consider another water droplet, of equal size, that falls on the window. The two water droplets would have a certain volume, which would be bigger than that of the single water droplet...unless of course, you assume that the two have the same volume...since 2+2=1...which makes no sense. More of the same liquid = the same volume.

Or, two bowls water at 150ml. That's 150ml + 150ml = 300ml. No, 2+2 is still not 1. 300 is just 150x where x = 2.

Fractals are relevant, since a number of fractals added together forms an object that is itself an object of the same kind, without the other smaller objects ceasing to exist.  So 2+2=5 in that case. 

We were not measuring the volume of the water droplets, another assumption was made there; that the 1s are uniform.  No assumption was made by me as to the size of the water droplets, the principle applies regardless of the size of the body of water. 

 
No, I pointed out how absurd and contradictory this logic is. And as I explained before, a simple addition equation cannot model reproduction.

Yet I showed that actually it can.  1+1=Infinity. 

 
Pseudoskepticism as defined covers skepticism taken to unreasonable proportions.

Of course powerful people can make their baseless opinions seem objective; no one is saying that sophistry and fallacies don't exist. In fact, that's the whole point of this website. I also don't see how I committed the slippery slope here, if anything, I just misparsed part of your argument here.

That makes no grammatical sense.  A Pseudo is something that isn't what it claims to be, an Ultra is something that is something taken to extremes. 

I am not arguing that they are wrong, just that their power is a the primary factor in the success of the foundational beliefs that they use to arrive at their conclusions.

The point however was not that they using fallacies or sophistries to control society.  They were using foundational beliefs which in themselves can be sound, not that their soundness can be verified without another set of foundational beliefs.  It is necessary to use power to establish foundational beliefs, it can even be described a good thing because otherwise we cannot arrive at any kind of knowledge and without knowledge we cannot make rational decisions. 

 

 

...so the people in power are using maths to control society? What is the relevance of this point again? 

More they are using people's false beliefs about maths to control society, beliefs that they propagate.

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

Please tell me more about this.  I have more questions.  

Is the earth flat or spherical?

Is Tupac alive or dead?

Does the earth go around the sun or does the sun go around the earth?

GoblinCookie writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Answering (for the sake of argument) without making use of my prior beliefs about the world, the answer would be.

Is the earth flat or spherical. 

Who says it is either? Maybe it's triangular.

Is Tupac alive or dead? 

Who says I am not Tupac reincarnated?  Or maybe you are?  Or maybe Tupac is an immortal god that can never die.

Does the earth go around the sun or does the sun go around the earth? 

Who says the sun even exists? Maybe it's an illusion and maybe the earth is really an alien screen set? Or it's a hologram, a virtual reality simulation or perhaps an illusion created by our unconscious minds. 

 

If you don't come to the table with any prior beliefs, all your answers will end up amounting to "I don't know" to every question.  You always have to start by believing or disbelieving in certain things in order to draw factual, even scientific conclusions about the world.  Now what beliefs we are starting with can quite easily simply be decided by our interests or by the will of those stronger than us.

Since belief is prior to knowledge, there is never any such as thing as truly neutral or independent facts or information.  Everyone started their inquiry believing in something and the facts of the world are derived ultimately from those prior beliefs. 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

I believe in modern science so I start with many prior assumptions.  I know that if I jump off a high rise building I will die when I hit the pavement.  The science has already been worked out.  I do t have to test it for myself.  The vast progress humans have made is because of prior assumptions.  

I believe in presupposional naturalism: all phenomena have natural causes.  

You are a radical skeptic.  You don’t see any difference between lies and truth.  I dont know how you function in the world.  2+2 is 4.  Tupac is dead.  The earth goes around the sun.  Logical rules in this website help people get closer to objective truth. 

GoblinCookie writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Yes you have beliefs and your beliefs allow to understand the world.  Which was my point.  Without those foundational beliefs the world cannot be understood.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

Your answers to OP's questions are  pseudoskeptical  because you blindly consider all possibilities equally without giving weight to prior evidence. Scientific consensus, based on thousands of calculations, papers and observations indicates the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Saying, "ah, but your human biases may be getting in the way, so it's ultimately all subjective!" is a nonsensical objection that dismisses knowledge, rather than pointing out any specific error within it. There is zero evidence that Tupac reincarnated, obvious evidence (e.g. news reports, photographs) that he is dead, and, given what we know about mortality, no reason to believe he  could  reincarnate. The same principle applies to the solar system.

If you don't come to the table with any prior beliefs, all your answers will end up amounting to "I don't know" to every question.  You always have to start by believing or disbelieving in certain things in order to draw factual, even scientific conclusions about the world.  Now what beliefs we are starting with can quite easily simply be decided by our interests or by the will of those stronger than us.

How do you know you don't know? How do you know what knowing is? How do you know what  you  are? Your own position results in you coming forward with prior beliefs, because you have to assume you are able to tell you don't know something.

And as for your last sentence...I...don't...understand what you're trying to push here.

 

Since belief is prior to knowledge, there is never any such as thing as truly neutral or independent facts or information.  Everyone started their inquiry believing in something and the facts of the world are derived ultimately from those prior beliefs. 

This is  contradictio in adjecto , or a self-refuting statement. You claim that there is no 'neutral' or 'independent' fact, yet...you rely on your own statements being neutral or independent for the claim to make sense. Otherwise, you cannot make this universal statement. If it is a neutral comment on epistemology, then you have contradicted the assertion that no such statement exists. Furthermore, you made this statement based on a given idea of 'neutrality' or 'independence' - unless you assume it to be objective, and thus neutral, you cannot assert it...thus, we have the above problem - either you made a false claim of objectivity, or you contradicted yourself.

I'm guessing you don't really believe this, though, as you said "for the sake of argument". It goes back to what I said about attempting to deconstruct knowledge to the point where you destroy your own ability to deconstruct it, since deconstruction is  also a viewpoint that makes assumptions about knowledge and knowledge-gaining.

 

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Your answers to OP's questions are  pseudoskeptical  because you blindly consider all possibilities equally without giving weight to prior evidence. Scientific consensus, based on thousands of calculations, papers and observations indicates the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Saying, "ah, but your human biases may be getting in the way, so it's ultimately all subjective!" is a nonsensical objection that dismisses knowledge, rather than pointing out any specific error within it. There is zero evidence that Tupac reincarnated, obvious evidence (e.g. news reports, photographs) that he is dead, and, given what we know about mortality, no reason to believe he  could  reincarnate. The same principle applies to the solar system.

Evidence is based upon the foundational assumptions made as to it's reliability.  My point is no knowledge can be arrived at without foundational assumptions, not that I have any way of arriving at knowledge beyond such assumptions. 

You start with the foundational assumption that physical reality is an illusion and we can eliminate pretty much all your evidence for the roundness of the earth.

 

 
How do you know you don't know? How do you know what knowing is? How do you know what  you  are? Your own position results in you coming forward with prior beliefs, because you have to assume you are able to tell you don't know something.

And as for your last sentence...I...don't...understand what you're trying to push here.

You do not have to know that you don't know.  Don't know is the default position about all matters of which you do not have enough knowledge to make a statement.  It does not imply that you actually have knowledge that you don't know. 

 
This is  contradictio in adjecto , or a self-refuting statement. You claim that there is no 'neutral' or 'independent' fact, yet...you rely on your own statements being neutral or independent for the claim to make sense. Otherwise, you cannot make this universal statement. If it is a neutral comment on epistemology, then you have contradicted the assertion that no such statement exists. Furthermore, you made this statement based on a given idea of 'neutrality' or 'independence' - unless you assume it to be objective, and thus neutral, you cannot assert it...thus, we have the above problem - either you made a false claim of objectivity, or you contradicted yourself.

I'm guessing you don't really believe this, though, as you said "for the sake of argument". It goes back to what I said about attempting to deconstruct knowledge to the point where you destroy your own ability to deconstruct it, since deconstruction is  also a viewpoint that makes assumptions about knowledge and knowledge-gaining. 

I am not making any neutral or independent statements.  My statements attract opposition because they are threatening to certain interests.  The interests are all those who make hidden assumptions the basis of their knowledge, they oppose a certain kind of power therefore. 

The claim that all knowledge has underlying assumptions is not a neutral statement.  It is directly threatening if you are a power that uses unacknowledged, hidden assumptions.