3 follows from 1 and 2. If you can't see that we can't continue this — Bartricks

:snicker:

You mean if I don't agree with you then there's no discussion, Backtracks?

I mean that someone who thinks an argument of this form - if p, then q; p; therefore q- is invalid is someone whose powers of rational discernment are useless

Yeah except the premises of your argument do not entail the conclusion as far as I can tell. Perhaps you could offer further explanation.

Useless. Hugh.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no idea what you are talking about. — Bartricks

:snicker: We all have our little problems!

You've fulfilled my every expectation Bortricks.

By the way I love the consistency of your God. He is reason so he, being omni-benevolent, would never deceive us. But he has given us, according to that very reason (according to you, of course), a life not worth living on account of the fact that it involves some suffering, and the ultimate hurt: death, a degree of suffering such as to warrant our reason (god) to tell us that it is immoral to procreate. And yet God created the world with us and our ability to procreate as part of it. Now that's some real fine consistency right there, boy! You're doing just fine boy, don't let your detractors, those who disagree with your reasoning, undermine your perfect God/reason-warranted confidence in your own ability to reason better than anyone else. :rofl:

You've fulfilled my every expectation Bortricks. — Janus

And you're very much a Hugh.

By the way I love the consistency of your God. He is reason so he, being omni-benevolent, would never deceive us. — Janus

Yeah, Hugh, you need to stop trying to think - it isn't working. It's not 'my' God, it's 'God'. And it does not follow from his being omnibenevolent that he would never deceive us. But you haven't the first idea what does or does not follow from another thing, do you? It's just whatever you think next.

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q

Hugh: 3 doesn't follow from 1 and 2, so far as I can see, because you're Bartricks and you know nothing. If P, then squirrel. But squirrels like nuts. So therefore nuts. If P, nuts. Bartthick.

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore P and Q

Hugh: no, so far as I can see, 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. How do we know anything? Do we just have to accept what you say, Bumtrick? I think that what follows from 1 and 2 is "I'm off to the shops".

1. If P, then Q
2. If Q, then R
3. Therefore if P, then R

Hugh, no, so far as I can see, 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. What follows from 1 is 34, or maybe yellow. Bumthick.

Tedious.

When you've managed to collect above 100 IQ points, get someone to read this to you:

1. If the correct explanation of a belief that p does not invoke the actual existence of p, then the belief is debunked because we do not have to posit p. (that has the form "If p, then q")
2. A purely evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things does not have to invoke the actual existence of any reasons to do things (that asserts p)
3. Therefore, if a purely evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things is correct, then our belief that there are reasons to do things is debunked because we do not have to posit any actual reasons to do things (therefore q).

Premise 2 is unsound: the reason to do things invoked by an evolutionary account is that to do whatever is adaptively advantageous or at least not adaptively disadvantageous. I dont expect you to get that, bit I'd like to see you attempt to refute it.

You keep changing your claims.

Soundness is a property of arguments, not premises. You mean 'false', not unsound.

Now you're saying that 2 is false. But you offer no argument, you just say things. Read the OP and address the case I made or go away and be a Hugh elsewhere.

Sound means true and unsound means false. Arguments are unsound, even thought they may be valid, if their premises are unsound. I told why 2 is false. don't pretend I haven't.

No, you Hugh, 'sound' is what a valid argument is when its premises are true. And unsound is what it is when one is false. Ignorant Hughs tend to use valid, sound and true as synonyms. But that's because they are ignorant Hughs.
And what you said - after insisting my valid argument was invalid - is this. You said 'promise 2 is infalse becorn doobidoobidoo'. And that, around these parts, is good filosophymizing.

A: Your argumentation is invalidity because it is doobidoobidoo. Hegel. Everything is subjective and how do we know anything anyway?

B: I agree that his urgemont is unfactisound,but it isn't doobidoobidoo. It is wahdiwahdiwaa. Noumenal. Everything is subjective and God's a dick and how do we know anything anyway?"

C: Have you read unqualified Hack's work on why everything is subjective and how do we know anything anyway? It's really good as he explains the dumbdidumbdidumb of everything and makes a great point when he says 'and how anything know do we?'

Bumthick — Bartricks

:rofl:

To posters engaged in discussion with Bartricks, look up gennaion pseudos (noble lie) and pious fiction.

You're right; my mistake; its a long time since I studied logic. In any case my point was that premise 2 is untrue, which makes you're argument unsound. Equating the terms 'sound' and 'true' is technically incorrect, but it does not change the point.

It is telling that you would rather pedantically address the technical error than address the obvious point of what I was saying.

You said - using incorrect terms to do so - that premise 2 is false because doobidoobidoo. How can I address that? Make an argument.

I said it is false because an evolutionary account does have to invoke reasons for doing things; namely that they are adaptively advantageous. Are you able to read?

No, those are causes, not normative reasons. You are confused because the word reason can also be used as a synonym for cause or explanation.

The reason the car exploded was the bomb.
I have reason to blow up the car.
The word reason means something quite different in the first sentence to the second. In the first it means cause. In the second it means normative reason.

The reason we believe in normative reasons (not causes,but normative reasons) if an evolutionary explanation is correct is that belief in them was adaptive. That does not mean we have to posit any. We posit causes, not normative reasons.

I understand the supposed distinction between normative reasons and adaptively advantageous reasons. We do things because we want to. If we don't do something we desire to do it is not because, abstractly speaking, it goes against a normative prohibition. It just shows that our desire to do the transgressive thing is not as strong as our desire to avoid transgressing an introjected normative proscription against doing the thing I desire.

Belief in normative reasons to do things is adaptive because generally those norms are designed to facilitate social harmony. For a social animal getting along with others is important to well-being. So my point is that there is no substantive distinction between normative reasons and adaptively advantageous reasons.

You don't seem to be able to read. The distinction was between normative reasons and causes.
And you have said above 'I understand the distinction between p and q, but doobidoobidoo I think ps are qs." So you don't understand it at all, do you?

Shall we try again?

The word reason is ambiguous. What does that mean? (Pssst, it doesn't mean that it can write with either hand)

The distinction was between normative reasons and causes. — Bartricks

There is no such substantive, as opposed to a merely conceptual distinction. For example, when we do something we desire to do, does that mean we are caused to do it by the desire? If you say 'yes' then what grounds would you have to claim that if we do something for a normative reason, that we are not caused to do it by our belief in the normative reason?

Try addressing what I'm saying and not succumbing to your attention deficit or bad faith-driven desire to characterize it as "doobidoobidoo".

Do you know what ambiguous means?

Stop squirming: answer the questions, address the argument.

And it does not follow from his being omnibenevolent that he would never deceive us. — Bartricks

You claim that reason does not deceive us and that God is reason. It follows that you believe God does not deceive us. If this is not on account of omni-benevolence then what is it on account of?

I said that the word 'reason' is ambiguous. I don't think you understand what that means.

I'll just tell you - it means it has more than one distinct meaning.

I then said that the word 'reason' can be used to denote normative reasons (which are what the OP is about) and also to denote 'causes'.

So, once more - and do take the bloody trouble to read what I am saying you giant Hugh - 'the reason the car exploded is the bomb'. The word 'reason' there denotes a cause.

I have reason to blow up the car. The word 'reason' there denotes a normative reason. Not a cause. A normative reason.

Now, if we haven't already far exceeded your ability to understand, we're definitely going to now. Normative reasons can sometimes cause things to happen. Oooo. So normative reasons can also sometimes be causal reasons as well.

But - and hold to the sides of your Hugh - causes are not necessarily normative reasons.

For example, the bomb didn't have a reason to blow up the car. It did. It caused that to happen. But it didn't 'have a reason to' do so.

Now, an evolutionary explanation of us will mention causes. It won't mention any actual normative reasons

This now sounds like this to you - doobidoobidoobidoo - yes?

What have you done, Hugh? All you've done is insist that normative reasons and causes are one and the same. No argument for that. Just an insistence.

Argue something!!!! Engage with the bloody OP. Take the bloody time to understand it. Then argue against something it says. DOn't nay say. Argue.

You claim that reason does not deceive us and that God is reason. — Janus

I conclude that God is Reason. I don't claim it. I conclude it.

It follows that you believe God does not deceive us. — Janus

Er, no it doesn't. You explain why you think it does. It doesn't.

If this is not on account of omni-benevolence then what is it on account of? — Janus

Reason - who is a person - will be omnibenevolent. That doesn't mean 'won't ever lie'. How many words do you actually know the correct meaning of? Is it 8 or 9?

Hugh: yeah, but you believes that God are Reason and that means you is thinking that is onionbenvolent, which means you think Reason likes onions.

I've already acknowledged there is a conceptual distinction, and I've already explained why I don't think it is substantive. So answer the questions and address the argument if you want this discussion to progress any further.

I'll put it another way: normative reasons are effective only if we believe them. Adaptive advantage gives us good reason to believe in them; namely that following them is generally adaptively advantageous.

I conclude that God is Reason. I don't claim it. I conclude it. — Bartricks

So you conclude it, but don't claim it to be true? Real consistent!

Er, no it doesn't. You explain why you think it does. It doesn't. — Bartricks

I've already explained why I think it follows: if reason doesn't deceive us, and God is reason then God doesn't deceive us. Try reading. Now explain why you think it doesn't follow.

Reason - who is a person - will be omnibenevolent. That doesn't mean 'won't ever lie'. — Bartricks

So, you think sometimes it is in our best interest to be deceived and that reason sometimes deceives us?

I've already acknowledged there is a conceptual distinction, and I've already explained why I don't think it is substantive. — Janus

I don't know what you mean by that (and nor do you). It's doobidoobidoo talk. Stop it. When I make a distinction, resist the temptation to articulate it in your own words. You don't know what most words mean, yes? So stop it. Stop trying to change the meaning of what I say into something stupid that you understand and then attributing it to me. NOw, why the F, when I said 'causes' did you start talking gibberish about 'conceptual distinctions'? Eh? Why? Do you think it makes you sound clever?

THe OP is about normative reasons. Normative reasons are reasons to do things.

The word 'reason' can be used as a synonym for cause. But that does not mean that a normative reason and a cause are synonymous.

There are causes of things. Some of them are normative reasons and some are not.

You are a troll, Bloatricks; you have no intention of discussing anything in good faith. As soon as you're stumped you resort to insult and evasion. Enjoy your solitude.