So I’m wondering, again, how others deal with this. — Darkneos

I approach it similarly to the way Alven Plantinga argues for the rationality of theism. Demonstrating rationality is distinct from proving something true. It's rational to believe ~solipsism because:

1) a natural world that produces creatures who's survival depends on successfully interacting with the external environment would entail the creatures having an innate (pre-semantic/pre-abstraction) knowledge that there is an external world.
2) Applying abstract reasoning to our innate understanding of the world entails ~solipsism
3) it is rational to maintain a belief that has not been defeated. Solipsism is logically possible, but mere possibility is not a defeater.

The possbility of solipsism is nothing more than a thought experiment. It demonstrates that we necessarily have basic beliefs at rock bottom. A belief like this, that is a result of the structure of the world, is basic "in the proper way" (as Plantinga puts it); i.e. its "properly basic".

So you embrace it, which means you can defend it.So:
1) what's the relevance of getting more votes than prior sitting Presidents when his opponent got even more (he lost pop vote both times)?
2) Is a former President above the law?
3) What makes you think there's no evidence of crimes?
4) What's the basis for claiming "it's known by all" no crime was committed?
5) What's the basis for claiming a "false charge"?
6) What is the benefit of mentioning "death and destruction"?
7) Are you aware of the Grand Jury subpoena for docs marked classified, Trump's attorney's letter certifying all had been turned over, and that more such docs were found when the search warrant was executed?
8) Do you deny that at least one crime was committed related to the Stormy Daniel's payment? (e.g. at least a misdemeanor, even of statute of limitations passed - it still .plies a crime committed).
9) Are you aware Trump tried to get the DOJ to lie and claim there was significant election fraud?
10) Are you aware Trump falsely accused Dominion of election fraud?
11) Are you aware Trump repeated a variety of claims about election fraud even after multiple people told him directly these claims were debunked? (E.g. he repeated the debunked Fulton Co. "suitcases of ballots" claim on 1/6 after he received briefings about what actually happened).
12) Are you aware John Eastman pushed a novel electoral college theory that he knew SCOTUS would not accept?
13) Are you aware Trump continues to push the bogus "2000 Mules" claim despite it being debunked?
14) Is Trump's rhetoric consistent with embracing rule of law, and is this at all relevant to you?

“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!” — NOS4A2

I'm curious if you see anything wrong with this statement of Trump's. I count 7 things.

An effect (order) is distinct from its cause (the operation of the laws). Looked at differently, order is evidence for a source of order. — Dfpolis

We perceive order, and infer laws of nature that account for it. So I agree our perception of order is a critical step in our understanding of nature, but the law exists with or without our perception and inferences.

Separate issue: have you read Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos"? Like you, he makes a case for teleology, and it's based on philosophy of mind issues.

whether it[order] is an intrinsic property cannot be determined until a definition is agreed upon. — Dfpolis

It seems superfluous to try and construe order as an intrinsic property, because laws of nature fully account for the perceived order.

If altering election laws in the run up to a contentious election is “democracy” and “making it easier for voters to vote”, what is threatening mass protest should their opponent win and advocating for the censorship of opposing views? — NOS4A2

There's nothing wrong with threatening mass protest if there's a defensible reason for that mass protest. However, making knowably false assertions about election fraud is indefensible. Even though demagoguery is legal to practice, it ought to be kept within the strictest legal boundaries to minimize its risk.

To judge that a system has order, it has to be capable of eliciting the concept <order>, which means that order is, by definition, intelligible. How can something unintelligible elicit any concept? — Dfpolis

It seems to me, the reason we can sometimes perceive order is because the laws of nature result in patterns and order. Conceivably, there are laws of nature that we we may never become aware of, and thus a sort of "order" we can never perceive. More importantly, I think "order" is too fuzzy (and subjective) to treat as an intrinsic property of a state of affairs, whereas the perception of order is explainable with laws of nature- which do seem to reflect something intrinsic.

Premise 1: The concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point.
Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress.
Conclusion: Therefore, the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity. — gevgala

The "who designed the designer" question arises from the premise that complex organization is best explained by a designer. The design argument goes something like this:

1. Complex organization entails designer (or at least: is best explained by design).
2. The universe displays complex organization
3. Therefore the universe is designed (or at least: is best explained by design)

The problem with this is that #1 also applies to a God, because this God has an infinitely complex and organized mind. If an infinitely complex mind can exist without having been designed, then #1 isn't true.

About a year ago, Trump actually said: " I’ve been investigated by the Democrats more than Billy the Kid, Jesse James, and Al Capone, combined.”

They’ve sent the entire perverted and corrupt American justice system after him. District Attorney Alvin Bragg, for instance, is trying to raise a misdemeanor to a federal crime, all while telling his staff to avoid prosecuting crimes like resisting arrest in his own state. It’s purely political. It’s a show trial. — NOS4A2

I'm sympathetic to some of this. Based on the publicly available information, I don't think a felony charge is warranted. However, while everyday crimes, like resisting arrest, may be over-prosecuted, the same can't be said about white-collar crime - so I disagree there's a relevant inconsistency. I can't disagree that there's political motivation, but there's also political backlash from Trump supporters - which reflects an inconsistency for anyone who simultaneously argued that Hillary should have been locked up (which would have meant treating her differently than anyone else who committed similar security violations).

rump torpedoed the deal Iran has moved closer to nuclear weapons. — Benkei

Yep. And we should remember that when he was running for President in 2016, he promised he'd negotiate a better deal with Iran, "A Trump presidency will force the Iranians back to the bargaining table to make a much better deal." Of course, this didn't happen.

He also said, "no deal is better than a bad deal" - and I don't see how anyone could claim we've been better off by abandoning the deal.

Question. Is it true that even the president can't declassified documents that contain information about our nuclear arsenal? Might require congressional approval also maybe? — TiredThinker

The Trump team has asserted the Constitution imbues a President with absolute control over document classification. If prosecution came down to this, it would need to be decided by SCOTUS. But as Michael said, the official classification status is irrelevant to the laws in question.

wouldn't say the God hypothesis is untestable. An intelligent being would, since intelligence & order are correlated, ensure that their creation (the cosmos) is ordered rather than chaotic. I had a muslim acquaintance who attempted to convince me of Allah's existence in this way. — Agent Smith

That sounds more like post hoc rationalization than hypothesis testing.

Is the multiverse science fiction only? Sabina seems to think so. — TiredThinker

It's not a testable hypothesis, and it's not even entailed by accepted physics - so no, it's not Science.

In some sense religion is science (god hypothesis) — Agent Smith

It's not a testable hypothesis, so explain what you mean.

Here's the thing: even if she actually did it for corrupt reasons, it's impossible to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it should be easy to show the judgment is legally flawed.

I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ — Dermot Griffin

It's a terrible argument, because it treats elements of Gospel narratives as established fact. Anyone who accepts the Gospels is already convinced. Anyone who doesn't accept them will reject the premises that Jesus made the statements.

IMO, all this judge has done is expose herself as a Trumpanista tool. The DoJ, I have no doubt, will find one or more viable work-arounds to this court-ordered delay and won't bother taking the bait with an appeal (contra Barcr).TBD. — 180 Proof

I prefer not to go there, because it feeds the Trumpian narrative that judge's are either biased for, or against him. The (bad) decision is explainable as incompetence. Even Trump apologists Judge Napalitanoand Bill Barr consider it a bad opinion.

I agree.

Even if there is relevance to the documents, they need to compare the associated delay of a Master's review with the alternative delay of the appellate process- likely to go to SCOTUS.

The fine tuning argument amounts to saying that if things were different they would not be as they are. It does not preclude the existence of a very different universe, a universe without us and our attempts to prove the existence of a god who has created a just so world for us. — Fooloso4

Yep.

The argument appeals to those who believe there must be a reason for our existing. i.e.those who don't like the idea that we're accidents.They overlook the improbability that they are the improbable product of a particular sperm fertilizing a particular ovum, each produced by parents produced in the same improbable way (all the way back through an improbable specific evolutionary history).

All of it, it turns out, was misinformation and propaganda. — NOS4A2

IMO, information leaked to the press should always be taken with a grain of salt, treated more as an allegation than a fact.

That said, the latest allegation is that there were secrets about a foreign government's nuclear capability among the papers illegally held by Trump. This is a bit different from the prior leak, but still in the ballpark. Regardless of the truth of that allegation, it's well established that Team Trump* violated the letter of the Espionage Act by retaining highly secret documents related to national defense. Further, there's clearly evidence of obstruction of justice. We'll have to wait and see if there are indictments.

*Team Trump = Trump and his legal team.

Trump is a buffoon, but with each passing day this ordeal is looking more and more politically motivated. — Tzeentch

You must be unfamiliar with the facts. Trump has been treated better than anyone else would possibly be treated.

For starters, he violated the Presidential Records act on Jan 21, 2021. Chalk that up to carelessness, due to his failure to plan his departure. But the National Archives requested their return in May 2021, and that's when they should have been returned. Had this been anyone other than a former President, the docs would have been retrieved within hours. This was just the beginning of his special treatment, but I'll leave it there for now.

There's no question that Individual-1 committed tax fraud, it's just a matter of time before he personally is criminally indicted. — 180 Proof

I agree there's a near certainty that tax fraud was committed, but it remains to be seen if a sufficiently strong case can be made against Trump, specifically. Trump avoids putting his orders/requests/expectations in writing, which gives him some degree of deniability. My money is on the civil suit succeeding, where his pleading the 5th can be used against him, and the burden of proof is lower.

The Fermi paradox depends on the questionable premise that the development of technologically advanced intelligent life is inevitable. I see no reason to think that.

We don't know how abiogenesis occurred. We have a good idea about some of the necessary conditions: 2nd generation star (so that heavy elements, including carbon) are present; rocky planet (not a gas giant) in the goldilocks zone of a start; An atmosphere of appropriate composition; liquid water;...These were necessary, but not probably not sufficient conditions for life to ensue. Alien-optimists suggest it's myopic to think that more exotic forms of life might develop in completely different circumstances. Perhaps so, but how does one assign a probability to something that is no more than a speculative possibility? Based on what we know, the probability of life developing on any random planet is low.

Prokaryotes are considered some of the earliest forms of life - single celled organisms with cells that lack a nucleus and mitochondria. Evolution generally entails response to environmental pressures. In the development of life, the life forms themselves become key parts of the environment. Genetic mutations are the engine, and there's a lot of randomness to this. This means there's no inevitable line of development for any particular species, and this also implies the composition of any particular ecosystem (the full complement of competing life forms in an environment) is even less probable. So looking back on the evolutionary history of humans, I don't see how anyone could claim we're inevitable.

But suppose beings with human-like complexity develop.Will they necessarily develop science and technology? Consider the Sentinelese: they have the same evolutionary history as we have, but haven't developed science. Clearly, the development of science is not inevitable. Developing science is another necessary, but not sufficient, condition.The inclination to explore planets beyond their own is not inevitable because scientific curiosity leads in a large number of directions. But some might indeed have the inclination, but there's also a dependency on resources. This includes physical resources like raw materials, but also on the collective desire to direct the society's efforts that way instead of others. This further highlights the dependency on particular paths of cultural development. And of course, we're discussing the development of working technology that surpasses anything we've done.

Finally, there's the limitations of what is physically possible. It will never be possible to travel to another galaxy (fantastic speculations about space warps or faster-than-light travel notwithstanding). There's a limit to how far a civilization can and would travel for interstellar travel. The technology would have to be sufficiently robust to survive for many years and to sustain life for those years. What fraction of a lifetime might creatures be willing to expend to make an interstellar journey? Suppose a 20 year-old humanoid would be willing to spend 50 years of a 75 year life span on such a journey, and he could travel close the the speed of life. This means he could travel 50 light-years. How likely is it for there to be a technologically-advanced civilization within 50 light years of here?

Bottom line: the likelihood of an alien civilization visiting earth is extremely low.

And yet the conclusion has been met with such resistance. Why is that? — Michael

I haven't read every post, but the posts I read seem due to a lack of understanding of modal logic. I explained the problem in my first post.

When I said it makes no sense, I wasn't indicating it was invalid. It's just that the argument is vacuous, so I see no sense in posting it on a philosophy forum.

Initially, I was trying to help you understand the modal scope issues that were present. I suspected you were confused about this, so was trying to politely help. Sorry if I offended you.

a. Jane believes with justification that John is a bachelor
b. Jane's belief might be wrong
c. Therefore, if John is a bachelor then a) is true and b) is true and John is a bachelor — Michael

The part in bold makes no sense. (a) is the premise "Jane believes with justification that John is a bachelor". A premise is treated as true, so why make it the consequent of a conditional?

Then the other part of the conclusion is vacuous - it just repeats the antecedent of the conditional (If John is a bachelor, then John is a bachelor).

Both are invalid.

The language is misleading because there are two different modalities within the argument: epistemic and metaphysical. I think this is the source of your confusion.

The statement (a), "Jane believes with justification John is a bachelor" needs unpacking. I infer that this means: "Jane believes John is a bachelor" and that this is a categorical belief. A categorical belief doesn't express any degree of doubt at all.The fact that this belief is justified, implies that - based on her background beliefs, that she believes it is necessarily the case that John is a bachelor. This reflects epistemic necessity (a weaker modality than metaphysical).

The statement (b), "Jane's belief might be wrong" sounds equivalent to: "it is metaphysically possible that Jane's belief is false". How could she be so certain, and yet still be wrong? Because there could be additional facts she's unaware of, or because one or more of her background beliefs is false.

So....
Argument 1 is invalid. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Argument 2 is invalid. If John is a bachelor, then her justified belief is true - it is not metaphysically possible for it to be false.

If you disagree, I suggest rewording your arguments with clarification of the modality for each modal statement.

All this weird hand-wringing about rhetoric means little in the wake of such actions, in this case the unprecedented actions of federal law enforcement. Bill or Hilary were never raided, even when they lifted furniture from the Whitehouse or when they ran the fat cat hotel out of the Lincoln bedroom. — NOS4A2

OK, let's play the whataboutism game.

The Clinton's returned, or paid for, what they took from the White House after it became an issue, and there were no national security implications.

Had Trump returned everything when initially asked, there would be no issue here either. It would have been deemed an inadvertent error, and it would be unlikely to result in any charges. Nevertheless, it would be just as worthy of public attention as Hillary's carelessness with having a server, and political fair game to remind voters about his vilification of Hillary for her poor judgment while then hypocritically doing something at least as bad.(Technically, worse, since Trump signed into law a new that made it a felony, and not just a misdemeanor).

Instead of returning everything, as he was required to do, he lied and said everything had been returned. This included some documents related to national security. Imagine if Hillary had continued to use her unsecure server after claiming she'd shut it down, and continuing to have classified documents on it.

1. I believe with justification that John is a bachelor
2. My belief might be wrong
3. John is a bachelor
4. Therefore, my true (from 3) justified belief (from 1) might be wrong (from 2) — Michael

Premises 1 and 2 reflect your beliefs
Premise 3 is a statement of fact that is independent of your beliefs

This makes your conclusion (as written) a bit misleading, because it's written as if you know* #3. If you know #3, then it is not possible for you to be wrong.

*("to know x" = to justifiably believe x & x is true & not a Gettier case)

Then why did they return the passports? Because they shouldn’t have taken them. In this case the contents wasn’t theirs to take, and they knew it. Corruption, incompetence, stupidity. — NOS4A2

Are you under the impression that that when objects are taken in a search warrant, law enforcement operates with perfection regarding what they seize? My guess is that it's pretty common to inadvertently take things that weren't intended. No harm was done, because the 3 passports were returned.

My inclination is to take the identity of indiscernibles seriously, which entails an absolute identity. You are not identical the "you" of 10 years ago. Still, there is something that ties you to that person -and that is a unique causal sequence. When we speak of an individual's identity, we are referring to this cross-temporal sequence. This is perdurance theory. "You" have temporal parts.

This applies to any existent. The clay that becomes a statue can be traced through a causal chain. If it becomes a statue of a woman, we can define at which points it begins to fit this label, and when it ceases to do so as it deteriorates. Throughout, it continues to be the clay. There's a degree of arbitrariness as to what we regard as a unique existent, but as long as we can well define it, we can examine it (and it's temporal parts) over time.

Sadly perhaps, philosophy often involves considering the implications of concepts that nothing to do with the real world.

As the argument is written, the modality of the statements is a bit confusing. I think some people are confusing epistemic possibility ("AFAIK I could be wrong") with metaphysical possibility (x is the case, but ~x could have been the case). I previously gave my interpretation of the argument, applying what seemed the intended modality. But it could be cleared up by revising the argument and specifying the modality in each statement (epistemic, metaphysical, conceptual, logical...)

10. ∃p: Bp ∧ ◇¬p (from 6, 8, and 9)
Which means you believe some propositions that are true, but are metaphysically contingent. Not really a problem. — Relativist


Do you not think this means “I believe p but it’s possible that I’m wrong”? — Michael

No. That's because Premise 8 states: ∀p: Kp
Which means there is knowledge of p (knowledge = a belief that is true).

Consider Schroedinger's cat. You open the box, and observe the cat is alive. You KNOW the cat is alive. Therefore you BELIEVE the cat is alive.

But it could have turned out differently: the cat could have been dead. So the fact that the cat is alive is a contingent fact. This isn't a case of ignorance, it's a case of metaphysical possibility.

So what does your analysis tell you about whether omniscience or/and absolute truths has/have existed, can exist or will exist? — universeness

My analysis of what? Of the argument? Premise 8 asserts someone is omniscient, and this contradicts no other premise.

Aside from the argument, I'd say that it seems logically possible (but not physically possible) for something to have knowledge of everything that is knowable. However, the outcome of a future metaphysically indeterminate outcome (like quantum indeterminacy) is unknowable. So it depends on how you define "omniscience".

I see nothing counterintuitive here. Here's my analysis...

2. Kp ⊬ □p

Kp is knowledge that p is true. It is not knowledge of whether p is metaphysically contingent or necessary.

4. ¬□p (premise)

...this entails p is metaphysically contingent. (but does not imply you know this to be the case)

7. Bp ∧ ◇¬p
By this stage: a) you believe p; b) p is true; and c) p is metaphysically contingent. d) you don't have a belief (or knowledge) about whether p is metaphysically necessary or contingent.

8. ∀p: Kp (premise)
OK, then you now are stating that you know the truth of all propositions, this includes the proposition "p is metaphysically contingent"

9. ∃p: ¬□p (premise)
Which means some propositions are metaphysically contingent.


10. ∃p: Bp ∧ ◇¬p (from 6, 8, and 9)
Which means you believe some propositions that are true, but are metaphysically contingent. Not really a problem.

Some Republicans are calling for release (or at least Congressional review) of the affidavit of probable cause that led the Judge to approve the search warrant on Trump.

Is this a good idea?

IMO, the document shouldn't be released to the general public if it jeopardizes potential prosecutions (Trump is not the only possible target of prosecution; the lawyer who allegedly told DOJ there were no additional classified documents is at risk, and perhaps others).

But it might be a good idea to review it with some members of Congress. However, there's a risk of it being interpreted through partisan eyes, and (worse) they might present a partisan spin on the info and exacerbate the polarizing rhetoric we already hear.

When it comes to Trump, NOS4A2 is mostly here for comic relief. On other topics, he says the odd sensible thing though. — Baden

I see. I wish we could cue up a laugh track while reading the posts.

I can’t help it. I have never had any faith in their idea of justice, nor the American justice system and her institutions. The FBI has been especially odious in this regard and the historical record proves this. — NOS4A2

By saying "I can't help it", is this an admission that you aren't analyzing this rationally? Because your standard of proof is inconsistent.

There's good evidence Trump did something wrong here, but you excuse if it's not technically illegal ("Trump declassified it"), still excuse it if it IS technically illegal (the espionage act doesn't depend on a formal classification), and cannot conceive that it might have been reckless to store such documents in an insecure way.

On the other hand, you judge that anything the FBI does is odious. Do you suggest all criminals incarcerated by the FBI be released, or is it just that they're "odious" with respect to Trump? Are you basing this on the errors identified by the IG with respect to Carter Page?