Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Iwannaplato]

OK, here's the new and improved argument.

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

One 'r' in derive, just to avoid nasty pedantic corrections which mine is not intended to be.

I think the key word here is 'derive'. Most meanings of the word all have the sense of getting from outside the self.

As long as it is clear that this includes creating/making up/calling one's preferences morals/trying to find common preferences in ourselves and other humans and the like and the naturalists are aware of this, AND they agree with P1 and 2, they have a problem.

Or if derive doesn't include those kinds of processes, then naturalists have an out.

[Skepdick]

OK, here's the new and improved argument.

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

One 'r' in derive, just to avoid nasty pedantic corrections which mine is not intended to be.

Ah, yes - those pedants. Fixed.

AND they agree with P1 and 2, they have a problem.

The systemic issue here is the skeptic's privilege - it's an asymmetry in the burden of proof. As it's currently practiced rejection is deemed to be free of charge and done on a whim, but I thnk classical logic mitigates this because it has reciprocity built-in.

To reject a premise as false is to claim the negation of the premise is true, and so it carries a burden of proof.

The burden of proof for impossibility is satisfied with proof of work showing attempt + failure to locate evidence.
Standard attack vector is that this is argument from ignorance. It's not a fallacy when the ignorance is widespread and factual throughout humanity and human history.

[Iwannaplato]

The systemic issue here is the skeptic's privilege - it's an asymmetry in the burden of proof.

Yes. That's well worded.
There seems to be an implicit assumption in some groups that parsimony in beliefs is best. Less beliefs is better, somehow. Or, only beliefs that are perfectliy supported should be believed in. I don't mean this is what you meant, but I think it's related.
This gets exacerbated by the assumption that if something is worth believing in, then it should be 1) good for everyone to believe it and 2) you should be able to demonstrate the truth of your belief (often 'via words on a screen.') to everyone. 3) This next is related to the other two: it is often implicit that experience has nothing to do with beliefs. IOW you should be able to demonstrate the correctness of your belief regardless of the experiences (and skill set) of the reader/listerner.

As it's currently practiced rejection is deemed to be free of charge and done on a whim, but I thnk classical logic mitigates this because it has reciprocity built-in.

To reject a premise is to claim the negation of the premise is true, and so it carries a burden of proof.

Reject as in claim it is false? I seem to remember reading someone saying that another kind of rejection does not entail this. I can't remember the context. I suppose I could see incoherence. Though I suppose even that is a claim so one would have at least the burden of demonstrating that - which in a forum like this one could be a nightmare.

The parsimony I mentioned was not in the occam's razor sense, but more in the total number and specific rigor thresholds for exclusion sense. Beliefs around this are often not justified.

I think that's another way to put this all: there are a lot of beliefs skeptics have that they don't justify since they are reacting. Often these are implicit.

Architects vs. Demolition firms.

[Skepdick]

Reject as in claim it is false? I seem to remember reading someone saying that another kind of rejection does not entail this. I can't remember the context.

It's the law of excluded middle (which is equivalent to a belief in free will, but that's a long side-quest)

Either P or not-P.
Either Accept or not-Accept. There is no third option "Reject"; that's simply a synonym for not-Accept.

If you not-Accept not-P(ossible) then you accept P(ossible).

[Iwannaplato]

Reject as in claim it is false? I seem to remember reading someone saying that another kind of rejection does not entail this. I can't remember the context.

It's the law of excluded middle (which is equivalent to a belief in free will, but that's a long side-quest)

Either P or not-P.

So you either Accept or not-Accept. There is no third option "Reject"; that's simply a synonym for not-Accept.

If you not-Accept not-P(ossible) then accept P(ossible).

A skeptic is going to fall into one of those.
Can't one simply not be sure?

[Skepdick]

A skeptic is going to fall into one of those.
Can't one simply not be sure?

They can be.

Shut up and don't reject.

If you open your mouth and claim P1 - take up the burden. As I have
If you open your mouth and reject P1 - take up the burden and provide counter-example.

If you reject P1 and don't take up the burden then you are simply being anti-social in your rejection of the social norm known as Classical logic

[Harbal]

Either P or not-P.
Either Accept or not-Accept. There is no third option "Reject"; that's simply a synonym for not-Accept.

There is a third option, which became immediately apparent to me when I first looked at the thread. Not to care is that option, and the most obvious one.

[Iwannaplato]

Either P or not-P.
Either Accept or not-Accept. There is no third option "Reject"; that's simply a synonym for not-Accept.

There is a third option, which became immediately apparent to me when I first looked at the thread. Not to care is that option, and the most obvious one.

Well, then one would most likely not be an active critic of the belief/argument. You'd find another thread to hop into and participate in in some way. Or?

[Skepdick]

Either P or not-P.
Either Accept or not-Accept. There is no third option "Reject"; that's simply a synonym for not-Accept.

There is a third option, which became immediately apparent to me when I first looked at the thread. Not to care is that option, and the most obvious one.

Yes. That was the shutting up option.

Instead of exercising it you chose to speak up and inform us that you don't care about distinguishing between truth and falsehood. You are indifferent.

Thanks for broadcasting your nihilism. Do you have anything else to add?

[Harbal]

Either P or not-P.
Either Accept or not-Accept. There is no third option "Reject"; that's simply a synonym for not-Accept.

There is a third option, which became immediately apparent to me when I first looked at the thread. Not to care is that option, and the most obvious one.

Yes. That was the shutting up option.

Instead of exercising it you chose to speak up and inform us that you don't care about distinguishing between truth and falsehood. You are indifferent.

I care very much about distinguishing between truth and falsehood, but I have come to learn that you are of no use in that endeavour.

Thanks for broadcasting your nihilism. Do you have anything else to add?

Yes, I most certainly do.

[Harbal]

Either P or not-P.
Either Accept or not-Accept. There is no third option "Reject"; that's simply a synonym for not-Accept.

There is a third option, which became immediately apparent to me when I first looked at the thread. Not to care is that option, and the most obvious one.

Well, then one would most likely not be an active critic of the belief/argument. You'd find another thread to hop into and participate in in some way. Or?

My actions tend not to be consistent with what I say, so who knows?

[Skepdick]

Of all the dull/predictable things you said, this one was the closest to being useful.

Is it possible to derrive untrue morals from nature but not possible to derrive true ones

It actually strikes at the very heart of whether there's any difference between truth and non-truth.

However, your meaning skepticism is consistently idotic because...
What does it mean for something to be true?
What's the true meanig of "meaning"?

Is there a possible universe in which the is no difference between truth and falsehood?

I'll construct you an argument that the very true-false distinction implies a super-natural differentiator, but I busy today.

The whole thing's just designed to be a tautology, darling. And a tautology means "true in all possible interpretations". This is Mathematics/Computer science, not logic

So your level of skepticism is in the amateur leagues.

There's facts - you obtain them from nature.
There's values - you don't obtain them from nature, but you do obtain them from somewhere.
Therefore there's a NON-natural source of values.

What if the source was LSD-induced hallucination? Sure - that's a supernatural source.

As per the Oxford definition of "supernatural"

[commonsense]

Reject as in claim it is false? I seem to remember reading someone saying that another kind of rejection does not entail this. I can't remember the context.

It's the law of excluded middle (which is equivalent to a belief in free will, but that's a long side-quest)

Either P or not-P.

So you either Accept or not-Accept. There is no third option "Reject"; that's simply a synonym for not-Accept.

If you not-Accept not-P(ossible) then accept P(ossible).

A skeptic is going to fall into one of those.
Can't one simply not be sure?

Sure. One can be agnostic. But Skepdick offers a powerful argument.

[Skepdick]

Sure. One can be agnostic. But Skepdick offers a powerful argument.

Not possible under Classical logic.

The Law of Excluded middle represents the ACT of choosing: P or not P. There's no fence for agnosticism to sit on.

Refusing to choose between P and not P amounts to rejecting excluded middle which amounts to a rejection of Classical logic.

[commonsense]

Sure. One can be agnostic. But Skepdick offers a powerful argument.

Not possible under Classical logic.

P or not P.

Know or not know.
Believe or not believe.

There's no fence for agnosticism.

Sorry, but what you pose as the excluded middle overlooks something. When each premise is evaluated, P may be true or false and not P may be true or false, leaving both indeterminate. Think Schroeder’s cat before opening the box.