|
|
General Discussion
Started by NickOtani at 05-30-2007 11:01 AM. Topic has 56 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 05-30-2007, 11:01 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
Now, DonQuixote99, you seem a bit defensive regarding this story about Hypatia. You try to undermine the significance of this event. Remember, you are the one who says it "proves nothing." I was quoting you in the sentence above. My only contention, one agreed with by credible historians and textbook writers, is that this event marked the end of philosophy in Alexandria and the beginning of the end of philosophy in all of Greece. The lack of philosophers from this time forward is prima facie evidence supporting this claim. The claim that this event "proves" nothing is much more unjustified than my claim. To prove it, one can point to the number of worthy philosophers who continued to talk about Plato and Aristotle in Alexandria, as if the death of Hypatia proved nothing.
The tide, in this case, is against your hypothesis, DonQuixote99.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-30-2007, 11:06 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
No Nick, I'm not being defensive. I'm not I'm not I'm not! Actually, what I'm being is disagreeable. Sorry, it's beyond my control..... :)
If I seem peoccupied with your 'bloody shirt' argument, it's because I think such arguments are usually emotional appeals, not rational argument. Any yes, I think that is true this time. You say "My only contention, one agreed with by credible historians and textbook writers, is that this event marked the end of philosophy in Alexandria and the beginning of the end of philosophy in all of Greece." But that isn't your only contention--in the context of this conversation, the tale of Hypatia disjointed was your response to my contention that the dark ages are more correctly laid to the barbarians than to the Christians.
It seems to me that your implied argument, as it stands, is:
1. Hypatia was slaughtered by a Christian mob.
2. Therefore, the classical philosophy schools died out.
3. Therefore, the Christians caused the dark ages.
Problem is, the link between 1 and 2 is not self-evident, (except MAYBE in Alexandria.) It just seems self evident if one is busy being appalled by the event (that emotional appeal I spoke of). You need to show Hypatia disjointed and other such things killed off the academies. It's your argument. I do not think you can properly stick me with the burden of proof here.
In fact, you're asking me to prove a negative, that Hypatia disjointed did NOT have the effect you claim. I do cry foul. You surely know that proving a negative cannot be done.
Additionally, part of the problem with "the Christians caused the dark ages" may be that we think of differect things when we use the abstraction "dark ages." I think of the crash of a civilization, with large emphasis on the destruction of trade, economic infrastructure, and, by the way, people. You apparently think of the end of the classical scholarly infrastructure, and of classical philosophy as a continuing, living tradition. You thus date the end of the 'dark ages' 1000 years from the fall of Rome, in the 1400s, I assume because that is when classical studies as such revived. I'd say the dark ages gave way to the 'middle ages' a good bit sooner, when economic and technological progress recoverd from the primitive level to which it had crashed.
Two different abstractions, same name. Happens a lot. Just have to keep in mind that neither map is the 'territory' of everything that happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-31-2007, 12:30 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
|
Philosophy, at that time, meant any intellectual inquiry. This would impact practical things as well as what philosophy has come to be limited to today. Some medical knowledge continued, but Egypt had things like anesthesia and dentistry, all of which had to be reinvented relatively recently.
After Hypatia was murdered, theology replaced philosophy whereever people were allowed to learn, and only the preists and monks were allowed to learn. This didn't change much until Descates.
BTW, one can prove a negative if it is defined. If someone discovers a black swan, they can prove conclusively that not all swans are white. If one agrees that contradictory objects don't exist and that square circles are contradictory objects, then one can agree that square circles do not exist. And, I told you that naming worthwhile philosophers who arose after the death of Hypatia would prove that her death did not end philosophy in Alexandria and ultimately Greece. I think your statement that Hypatia's death proved nothing is a much less justified statement than mine. It needs some support. It's is not fair to say "X proves nothing," and then say one need not prove it because one can't prove a negative. Gee!
There are primary sources which describe the death of Hypatia and the impact it had, and there are respected historians, like Edward Gibbon, who agree with my assessment of it. He is quoted by Russell, Durant, Matson, and most popular authors of philosophical history.
Yes, I know there were other reasons for the decline of knowledge and progress after the fall of Rome, but I think the power of the Church was the main reason. And, yes, I go beyond the dark ages and into the middle ages, where the Spanish Inqusition kept people from deviating from anti-intellectual Christian dogma.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-31-2007, 6:27 AM
|
tjohnson
Joined on 05-30-2007
Posts 26
|
|
|
|
"If one agrees that contradictory objects don't exist and that square
circles are contradictory objects, then one can agree that square
circles do not exist."
Slightly off the topic, but Korzybski used the notion of 'logical existence' (he probably borrowed it :-) to mean "any statement that wasn't self-contradictory" .
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-01-2007, 7:47 AM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
...there are respected historians, like Edward Gibbon, who agree with my assessment of it.
You mean you agree with Gibbon's assessment of it, don't you Nick? I don't think you are a scholar of the ancient sources any more than I am. We must rely on people who are. So your citing your authority here--Gibbon and people who quote him--moves us forward.
Gibbon has critics, of course. As far as that goes, is it your view that Christianity led to the fall of Rome by destroying it's martial virtues, as Gibbon believed? In any case, I've provided links to a source who does examine the ancient material, and who also finds considerable fault with Gibbon's conclusions. For example, he considers the idea that
Theophilus was responsible for the burning of the Alexandria Library, a claiim that he says appears in no earlier sources than Gibbon, insupportable. Can you provide links to similar source-citing arguments on your side, or to relevant passages in Gibbon, so the arguments can be compared?
Here are my links again, for your convenience:
On the burning of the Library at Alexandria: http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm
On Christianity and the loss of pagan literature: http://www.bede.org.uk/literature.htm
I do want to get back to the matter of proving a negative and so on, but that will have to be later.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2007, 4:32 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
Nick, I promised to get back to the question of proving a negative. First, I'll mention your example of a logical proof that square circles don't exist. That's proof of a negative all right, but we aren't talking about logical proof in a simple factual structure. We are talking about proof in the sense of conclusive evidence in the area of real-world human affairs. Proving a negative may be trivial in the closed world of a simple logic example, but it is a very different matter in the boundless universe of largely unknown facts that characterizes real life.
Moving to swans, it really doesn't matter if you phrase a proposition with the word 'not,' as 'not all swans are white,' or without, as 'all swans are white.' The 'negative' of both these propositions is the same: 'not-white swans do not exist.' To prove a positive, such as 'not-white swans do exist,' you need only find one, as you said. So what you gave was an example of proving a positive, or of disproving a negative (same thing). Asusming black swans are not extremely rare, this can presumably be accomplished easily enough. But let's say you do undertake to prove the negative, that there are no black swans, and you happen to be in an area where they are hard to find. You go to dozens of lakes and ponds, examine thousands of swans, and find no black ones. Have you now proven that not-white swans do not exist? No you have not. No matter how many white swans you find, you have not proven that there are no black ones unless your examination is utterly exhaustive. To prove the negative, you must go everywhere, and examine all swans. Such projects tend as a practical matter to be impossible, and this is why it is said to be 'impossible to prove a negative.'
Turning to our historical issue of the influence of Hypatias's martyrdom, what is more reasonable: that you should search for examples showing such incidents had important influence, or that I should search exhaustively to prove the negative, that no such examples exist? I said it proves nothing becuase on the face of it, it's just an annecdote that evokes emotion. If you believe it is more, show evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2007, 12:40 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
|
Listen, DQ, you are not talking to someone unfamiliar with logic, debate, and the rules of evidence and dialectic procedure. I do know when someone submits a proposition that requires support, and I know when that support has been met and when it has been adequately refuted. I also know when issues are being evaded.
I presented a description of an incident that happened, is well documented, and had repercussions which I pointed out. I preceded this with evidence of hostility toward philosophy in Christianity, that Paul said beware of vain philosophies. I pointed out that Christianity had the power and that no worthy philosophers arose after the incident with Hypatia. And, I pointed to credible historians who agree with my contention, that revealed religion had an oppressive impact on philosophy from the early middle ages, from the incident with Hypatia, to the renaissance. This is prima facie support for my contention. It is not absolute proof such as in a mathematical problem, but it is enough that the contention can be considered true if not adequately refuted. You have not adequately refuted it.
You said the incident proved nothing. This is a knowledge claim. It requires support. You don’t get a pass by saying you can’t prove a negative.
One can talk about not being able to prove a negative when someone says “Can you prove that one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters don’t exist?” It is really not your burden to prove they don’t exist. It is the burden of those who make the knowledge claim that they do to at least present a prima facie case that they do. And, simply because nobody proves they don’t is not proof that they do. However, if someone makes a knowledge claim, more than just a belief claim, that they don’t exist, then that person has a burden to support that knowledge claim, just as you have a burden to prove that the Hypatia incident proves nothing.
This is the same thing that happens in arguments for or against the existence of God. If someone says he or she rejects a belief in God, he or she has no burden. The person who claims as knowledge that God exists has the burden to prove it or, at least, present a prima facie case. However, if someone says, as a knowledge claim, "God does not exist," then he or she has a burden to prove it. (It is not the case that God has been proven to exist if He cannot be proven not to exist. And, it is possible to prove, with mathematical certainty, that certain definitions of God do not logically exist.)
Yes, I know all about the inconclusiveness of inductive evidence, but we aren’t going for mathematical certainty here. This is historical analysis. We are looking for prima facie arguments supporting contentions, knowledge claims. Once those arguments are prima facie, the burden shifts to an opponent who can poke holes in them, not just claim that it hasn’t been proven. And, if someone makes an opposing knowledge claim, like that the Hypatia incident proves nothing, this requires prima facie support.
I also told you what you would need to do to establish that the Hypatia incident proved nothing. You could list the first rate philosophers who arose after this incident and lived in harmony with the Christians of this time. You haven’t done this. What you do is keep telling me I haven’t proven my case and that you don’t have to prove yours. I think this is evasion. I have presented a prima facie case. You have not refuted it, and you have not supported your claim.
BTW, just because an incident evokes emotion it doesn't mean it is not true or meaningful, or proves nothing.
Bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2007, 2:15 AM
|
IamNittyCheesian
Joined on 06-04-2007
Posts 1
|
|
|
|
What exactly is the point of the original post? Are you developing historical support for an attack on Christianity (and thus modern Christianity)?
Cheers.
INC
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2007, 7:18 AM
|
tjohnson
Joined on 05-30-2007
Posts 26
|
|
|
|
"but we aren’t going for mathematical certainty here."
For what it's worth, I think the idea of 'proof' only makes sense within the context of mathematics. In 'real' life we can make suggestions ,predictions, etc. and see how well they fit our observations, but as we get more data we must be prepared to alter our abstractions.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2007, 11:22 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
| For what it's worth, I think the idea of 'proof' only makes sense within the context of mathematics. In 'real' life we can make suggestions ,predictions, etc. and see how well they fit our observations, but as we get more data we must be prepared to alter our abstractions. |
|
In real life, we can't wait for mathematical certainty before we act. We can't know with absolute certainty that the ground will not give way under us with the next step we take. We make decisions based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and "greater preponderance of evidence." These are the standards of "proof" in courts of law, and sometimes people's lives depend on these standards. Yes, the the propositions may still be wrong, but we have to take risks, or stay in bed all day. According to Goedel, even mathematical certainty is not totally certain, and that's pretty certain. ;)
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2007, 3:28 PM
|
tjohnson
Joined on 05-30-2007
Posts 26
|
|
|
|
I agree, but I am saying that perhaps rather than discussing if one has 'proved' something it might be more appropriate to talk about 'convincing' others. In a court of law what we are really doing is presenting our evidence and trying to convince the judge and/or jury that our case is the better one. In the end we haven't 'proved' anything, we have only convinced some people that our analysis was correct, as far as it goes. This is true even in physics, chemistry, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2007, 6:06 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
|
Well, some people won't be convinced even in the face of overwhealming evidence in support of a contention. It doesn't mean the contention was not adequately supported. I think there is an independent standard. Truth is not a matter of majority rule or what is more popular. In a room full of bigots, a minority view will never convince, but it doesn't mean it is not true or objectively supported. An unproven view, one that is full of fallacious reasoning, might be convincing.
I think we can use the word "proved" keeping in mind that we could still be wrong. It's the highest degree of certainty for which we are looking, and this is often enough to build computers, put equipment and people in space, and develop technology to keep us from falling into anouther dark ages.
And, I think people who make knowledge claims, as DQ did, have a burden of proof, which means they have to at least present a prima facie case in support of such claims.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2007, 7:20 AM
|
tjohnson
Joined on 05-30-2007
Posts 26
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree again. You pointed out a significant difference when you brought up the example of putting people in space as opposed to convincing a jury. Yet in scientific journals new research has to be referreed by peers, also a kind of jury, so even 'hard' sciences are subject to opinion. So I can't agree about the 'independent standard', if you mean independent of human abstraction. It may be that someone's thesis is the best analysis ever done so far in human history, yet the people in power may not be open-minded enough to accept or see it. We cannot escape operating within the context of other humans seeing things differently than us, it both a strength and a weakness of human existence, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2007, 9:30 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
|
If an argument is rational, it is rational independent of human opinion. If there is a formal fallacy, it is a fallacy regardless of whether or not people recognize it. This is what Rand means by independent of human wish or whim. Things like truth are not a matter of opinion.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2007, 9:40 AM
|
tjohnson
Joined on 05-30-2007
Posts 26
|
|
|
|
And is this what you believe as well?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 (57 items)
|
< 1 2 3 4 > |
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Jesus
|
|
|
|