My question really is whether you think someone's motivation determines the truth of what they say. Mathematicians enjoy mathematics, and of course that's why they do it. Finding an especially good result may make you especially happy, but the converse obviously does not hold.

There has been some controversy within philosophy in recent years about whether alternative points of view are suppressed by charging them with committing the genetic (and related) fallacies. I was wondering if you were taking a side here.

What's at issue is whether it's true as a principle. — Terrapin Station

How would you go about proving/disproving this principle? I'd say the PSR is grounded firmly on evidence which spans across all of history. If you think it's false then the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.

I'm saying that there are possible exceptions — Sapientia

I agree. There could be exceptions - it's possible - but where are they? Until such a time that the PSR is disproved I'll continue to accept it as a valid principle.

Btw, I'm almost certain Hume had a related argument that the order you perceive in the universe could be the order only of the little bit you have knowledge of, and that for all you know the far greater portion of it is a seething chaotic hellscape, or words to that effect — Srap Tasmaner

You're right but the order could also be universal. Remember I'm not trying to prove god exists. I'm only trying to counter an atheist's position, specifically his/her refutation of the design argument. I think both theists and atheists have gone beyond the strength of the available evidence.

Once you say those things are all the same, you've lost the ground for attributing anything to conscious agency. — Srap Tasmaner

I didn't say they're ''all the same''. There's a difference in degree. Natural order is of a higher degree than man-made order. Think of it like an office. You, as an employee, have your own set of rules that guide your behavior, work habit, the setup of your room, etc. BUT your rules must be sub-ordinate to your boss's rules.

Your dilemma as I see it – is that no God exists – because it cannot be proven. This is a valid supposition. However, the supposition/antithesis that there is no God – also cannot be proven. So, we have two unprovable suppositions. In essence we are at a stalemate. However, my further supposition is that each argument is connected to our emotions; because we cannot escape emotion. In addition my argument is that our emotional disposition is what motivates us to choose one argument over the other. Not force of reason – not veracity of logic – not strength of one argument over the other. Each argument comes to an end – beyond which there is no reason – logic – primacy. They are equal in veracity – although different in character.

Why do I like vanilla as opposed to chocolate ice cream – I do not know. I do not care. Perhaps I can consult a geneticist or psychologist or both. Perhaps a palm reader can tell – I am certain in your sarcastic wisdom you will suggest this is what I have done. That is a straw man and you are very good at proposing them. If you will pay attention to my reference to a still mind – you will see the feather that tips the scale for me. I understand you have a different feather or cinder block – tell me what it is? If you have more logic which we have not considered – please share it. If you think there was something unclear in the logic you presented – please clarify. I have already stated that the scale of God – no-God is perfectly balanced. If, you don’t agree – tell me how the scale is not balanced? For me – it is the feather of a still mind that makes the difference.

In essence a still mind is devoid of emotion – logic – reason. It is empty but aware. A very curious circumstance. Afterward, I am given pause – I am reflective – pensive. This pure awareness – not pure logic – not pure reason – not pure emotion – gets me thinking. What is it? I do not know – but I like it. Perhaps you have experienced this – please tell me if you have? Many a Buddhist experiences the still mind and is atheistic – many are theists – many are both. It is a choice based upon emotions and motivation. Emotions never leave us – except in a still mind. I await your reply.

I didn't say they're ''all the same''. — TheMadFool

You had better, or your analogy doesn't get off the ground. I'll try again:

Option 1:
Here's a house. Designed. Must've been a person.
The universe itself looks designed. Must've been a person.
Oh crap! I only recognized the house as designed because it's different from, say, trees and mountains. If everything looks designed, there's nothing about a house that suggests it's the work of a person.

Option 2:
There are two kinds of design or order.
One of them I know to be the work of a person.
Oh crap! There's nothing more to say, without heading back to Option 1.

You have to somehow get person into Option 2. You're trying, but it's just by postulating--the analogy from Option 1 is just gone. You tried the word "subset" first and now you're saying "degrees," but what's missing is any real argument that these things are similar enough to be considered different species of the same genus, and that whatever that genus turns out to be, it's something we'll recognize as the result of personal agency.

Rules won't do the trick. Everyone knows that physical law and regular old human law aren't the same sort of thing at all. They are not species of the genus Law. Just using the word "law" to describe how the universe works is probably a hangover from a more theist period of physics.

Yeah I know you didn't say anything about human law, but when you say "your rules must be sub-ordinate to your boss's rules," it's exactly the same equivocation. The rules of an employee should be subordinate to his boss's. It's normative. Physical law is a necessity. There's no choice about obeying. If I'm an employee of the universe, I'm a good employee whether I want to be or not.

Whichever word you choose--order or design or rules or laws--you have to argue that the high and the low are different types of the same thing. Option 1 was plausible in, say, the 17th and 18th centuries when you could compare an orrery to the actual solar system and say, "Hey, they're both machines. I made this one; He made that one."

The dilemma, once again, is this: sufficient similarity, the feature is no longer a sign of personal agency; insufficient similarity and you can only attribute to personal agency the one you already know.

I like this point.

How would you go about proving/disproving this principle? I'd say the PSR is grounded firmly on evidence which spans across all of history. If you think it's false then the burden of proof falls on your shoulders. — TheMadFool

Assuming that there are really reasons for anything (and it's not simply a way that we think about things), no amount of experience is going to justify it as a principle. Hence, there being no good reason to buy it as a principle.

My question really is whether you think someone's motivation determines the truth of what they say. Mathematicians enjoy mathematics, and of course that's why they do it. Finding an especially good result may make you especially happy, but the converse obviously does not hold.

There has been some controversy within philosophy in recent years about whether alternative points of view are suppressed by charging them with committing the genetic (and related) fallacies. I was wondering if you were taking a side here. — Srap Tasmaner

Truth is a slippery little lizard. Emotions are like the carrot and the stick. Our preferences come from a variety of sources. Sometimes it is the stomach that is charge – sometimes the brain – sometimes the heart – sometimes a combination. Who is to say what is right? In the end – truth is in the eye of the beholder. With enough pressure my truth may change. What I view as truth today can change tomorrow. Sometimes my vision of truth need glasses – sometimes a microscope – sometimes I cannot make out what I am looking at. How about you?

I agree. There could be exceptions - it's possible - but where are they? — TheMadFool

Wait, how can you reconcile being a proponent of the PSR and accepting that there could be exceptions? That's inconsistent. The PSR rules out the possibility of any exception. You can't have your cake and eat it.

As for "where are they?", I've referred to possible exceptions already, examples in this very discussion. Don't ask me where they are, instead seek out what I referred to. Go back over our discussion where I indicated. Also, I think that the TheWillowofDarkness gave a good example.

Until such a time that the PSR is disproved I'll continue to accept it as a valid principle. — TheMadFool

That's an argument from ignorance: a fallacy. And your previous reply suggested a hasty generalisation: another fallacy. You're like one of those people who concluded that all swans are white. That's quite a list you've accumulated now. Do you really not see all of these problems with your argument? Do you admit that your argument is flawed?

sometimes I cannot make out what I am looking at. How about you? — Thinker

Now that you mention it...

I think both theists and atheists have gone beyond the strength of the available evidence. — TheMadFool

Ironic.

I'm only trying to counter an atheist's position... — TheMadFool

But in doing so, you're making the same error as do the theists you refer to above. You're pushing these flawed arguments, and at the same time, acting as though you occupy some kind of balanced middle-ground which escapes criticism. That illusion needs to be shattered.

I think both theists and atheists have gone beyond the strength of the available evidence.
— TheMadFool

Ironic. — Sapientia

I find this ironic too. I am not so sure the madfool has a position - he may just like to hear himself talk.

Can you tell me where exactly non-existence and PSR connect? — TheMadFool

It's easy to work out. Just write out your favourite version of the PSR and look for where the word 'exists' or 'there is' occurs. Sometimes it's disguised as a 'has', but I'm confident you can see through that.

he may just like to hear himself talk — Thinker

Thanks for the compliment. :s

You had better, or your analogy doesn't get off the ground. — Srap Tasmaner

If it's all the same'' then they're identical, which is not the case. Surely you can see the difference between man-made order and natural order?! Natural law is immutable, so far - a round lead ball will sink in water everywhere, anytime. Man-made order can be overriden e.g. when a strong wind scatters a ream of neatly stacked papers. So, the two are NOT identical in that respect. However, the common feature that unites the two is order/organization/rules. It's only this aspect (order) that's of any relevance. Thus, human derives from man-made order AND god derives from natural order. Simple.

Assuming that there are really reasons for anything (and it's not simply a way that we think about things), no amount of experience is going to justify it as a principle. Hence, there being no good reason to buy it as a principle — Terrapin Station

You're contradicting yourself. You used the word ''hence'' which is an instance of PSR. So, you do, deep down somewhere, believe that it's nonsense to believe without reason. I think the whole edifice of philosophy is based on this premise, this very thread being, your participation, being proof of the PSR. Anyway, to the point, give me an example that negates PSR. You can't. However I can give you evidence for PSR e.g. 6 million jews were killed in ww2 because of Nazi Germany's race philosophy. The WTC was attacked because of radical Islam. Water turns to ice because the temperature falls to or below 0 degree celsius
. Etc. Etc. Your turn.

That's inconsistent. — Sapientia

There's nothing inconsistent about scientific principles being provisional. If I'm right all scientific principles are open to challenge. No scientist makes claims to absolute truths. I think they call it falsifiability. However, until such events that disconfirms a principle it is assumed to be true. The same for PSR.

That's an argument from ignorance — Sapientia

But there's evidence for PSR and none to the contrary. You have failed to provide a counterexample to the PSR.

You're pushing these flawed arguments, and at the same time, acting as though you occupy some kind of balanced middle-ground which escapes criticism — Sapientia

Sometimes the correct answer is ''I don't know''. As important as it is to be confident in our knowledge is the awareness of our own ignorance. This is an option many fail to see.

It's easy to work out. Just write out your favourite version of the PSR and look for where the word 'exists' or 'there is' occurs. Sometimes it's disguised as a 'has', but I'm confident you can see through that — andrewk

Just give me a counterexample to PSR.

Suppose I built a house and God created this universe.
Tell me exactly what those two acts have in common.

Suppose I built a house and God created this universe.
Tell me exactly what those two acts have in common — Srap Tasmaner

The organization/order is what's common.

The organization/order is what's common. — TheMadFool

Perhaps you could be more specific.

There's nothing inconsistent about scientific principles being provisional. If I'm right, then all scientific principles are open to challenge. No scientist makes claims to absolute truths. I think they call it falsifiability. However, until such events that disconfirms a principle it is assumed to be true. The same for PSR. — TheMadFool

Science does not assume that some event is true just becasue it has not been falsified. If I claim there are mermen living at the bottom of some unexplored sea trench, science does not say: "Yes, of course. We haven't explored down there. Those mermen must exist." You would have us asserting unicorns existed just because we haven't explored a certain forest yet, a veritable confusion of imagination (i.e. what someone might think exists in an as yet unobserved area) for the world itself. Us realising something might exist in an unexplored or unobserved area does not mean that it does.

Furthermore, this line of argument makes no sense with respect to the PSR. The PSR is posited as a logical necessity. It's the force we supposedly need to make logical distinctions coherent. It doesn't have an empirical form to confirm or falsify through observation.

If someone is arguing for the PSR, it's a point about a logical reason which does not manifest empirically. It's thought to be a necessary force of order which allows things to be themselves rather than any other thing. By your arguments here, I would say you don't even know what you are trying to support.

You can't. However I can give you evidence for PSR e.g. 6 million jews were killed in ww2 because of Nazi Germany's race philosophy. The WTC was attacked because of radical Islam. Water turns to ice because the temperature falls to or below 0 degree celsius — TheMadFool

All of those are wrong. 6 million Jews were killed because the Nazis killed them; a race philosophy isn't the many actions and people involved in genocide. The WTC wasn't attacked by "radical Islam." It was hijacked planes which flew into the buildings. Radical Islam was just the ideology of the people who did it. Water doesn't turn to ice becasue the water falls below 0 degrees celsius ( Seawater isn't frozen at 0C ). It does so because, at 0C, some instances of water become solid.

Perhaps you could be more specific — Srap Tasmaner

A house is organized - the plumbing, the lighting, the orientation, the layout, the furniture, etc. - all are designed for convenience, comfort, energy efficiency, structural stability, etc.

The universe is organized - there are laws that govern matter-energy and their interaction. Netwton's laws, Theory of Relativity, Laws of thermodynamics, etc.

And then tell me how the things on your two lists are similar.

Science does not assume some event is true just becasue it has not been falsified. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Perhaps sloppy writing is to blame. I don't mean to say PSR is simply assumed to be true. There's evidence that spans all of history - from the jurassic extinction 65 million years ago to the current terrorist attacks in Europe that are making headlines. All of these have a reason. Do you deny that? Given this degree of depth and breadth of evidence isn't it rational to believe in the PSR?

You, on the other hand, are rejecting the PSR and doing it by giving reasons. Apart from the self-refuting nature of such an exercise you also haven't been able to provide a single counterexample to PSR.

Furthermore, this line of argument makes no sense we with respect to PSR. PSR is posited as a logical necessity. It's the force we supposedly need to make logical distinctions coherent. It doesn't have an empirical form to confirm of falsify through observation. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As far as I can see PSR applies to two domains:

1.The physical world (for it says there's a cause for every event)

2.The other is the domain of rationality (propositions need evidence).

As is evident (from 1) PSR does have empirical form (which you're denying).

You reject PSR which means you reject 1 or 2 or both.

If you reject 1 then please provide a counterexample (I've asked this many times).

If you reject 2 then so much for rationality, the world, this forum, this argument we're having.

And then tell me how the things on your two lists are similar — Srap Tasmaner

The similarity is the existence of principles that is common to both a house and the universe.

The similarity is the existence of principles that is common to both a house and the universe. — TheMadFool

Are you saying the similarity is that there are principles at all, or that the principles themselves are similar?

there are principles at all — Srap Tasmaner

That's it.

Is the relation between my house and its principles the same as the relation between the universe and its principles?

Is the relation between my house and its principles the same as the relation between the universe and its principles? — Srap Tasmaner

To the extent that we can posit a creator of the principles.

There's nothing inconsistent about scientific principles being provisional. — TheMadFool

The PSR is not a scientific principle. If it's true that there must be a reason, then that rules out the possibility of exceptions. If you assume it to be true, then you tacitly assume that there can be no exceptions. Neither assumption has been justified by you, and that's what you'd need to do (although you'd only really need to justify one, since the other would follow).

However, until such events that disconfirms a principle it is assumed to be true. The same for PSR. — TheMadFool

I thought we were doing metaphysics and epistemology. Assumptions don't count. It's about truth and knowledge respectively.

But there's evidence for PSR and none to the contrary. You have failed to provide a counterexample to the PSR. — TheMadFool

No, no and no. What evidence? Your hasty generalisation doesn't count. The evidence to the contrary, and the possible counterexamples, consist of the examples I've been referring to that you've been ignoring.

Sometimes the correct answer is ''I don't know''. — TheMadFool

That's the correct answer with regards to the PSR, it seems to me. It might also be the correct answer with regards to your proposed designer, but we haven't even gotten around to discussing evidence of absence yet, which could pose a big problem for you and your argument. If you're claiming that this designer entails a humongous amount of evidence, but this evidence is absent, then that would count as extremely good evidence against the existence of this designer.

Good reply, and I agree with almost all of that.

And then tell me how the things on your two lists are similar. — Srap Tasmaner

Haven't you noticed how a toilet waste connector is just like the Theory of Relativity? ;)

Perhaps sloppy writing is to blame. I don't mean to say PSR is simply assumed to be true. There's evidence that spans all of history - from the jurassic extinction 65 million years ago to the current terrorist attacks in Europe that are making headlines. All of these have a reason. Do you deny that? Given this degree of depth and breadth of evidence isn't it rational to believe in the PSR? — TheMadFool

No, because that'd be a hasty generalisation.

You, on the other hand, are rejecting the PSR and doing it by giving reasons. Apart from the self-refuting nature of such an exercise... — TheMadFool

I've seen that this error has already been explained to you, yet you persist in making it. Why?

Giving a reason is no where near a self-refutation with regards to rejecting the PSR.

You, on the other hand, are rejecting the PSR and doing it by giving reasons. Apart from the self-refuting nature of such an exercise you also haven't been able to provide a single counterexample to PSR. — TheMadFool

That there are reasons for some things is not that there are reasons for everything.

As for an example of something without a reason, perhaps that there is something rather than nothing, or that the fundamental features of the universe are what they are.

That there are reasons for some things is not that there are reasons for everything. — Michael

It's worse than that. The PSR posits a necessity. Even if there are reasons for everything, that doesn't mean that there must be.

There are reasons for some things, so there must be reasons for everything is an obvious non sequitur, as is it's right unless you prove it wrong.