Why do absolutists behave like relativists?

[Dave Ellis]

Formal or informal fallacies or not, the response in question did not address anything that had actually been said.

Some of us have internet access that is severely limited. Some of us have time that is severely limited.

Meanwhile, I doubt that anybody here is looking for "agreement".

When people want answers--answers/responses to what has actually been asked/proposed--and their resources are severely limited, don't be surprised if they point out formal or informal fallacies that might be undermining the effort.

For a guy who has limited time or internet access, you sure write long drawn out responses.

Identifying a fallacy can easily be done with a two minute google search, so to be frank, I'm not sympathetic when you want to incorrectly accuse others of fallacies, then claim you're justified in doing so because you lack time to understand what you're talking about.

I for one am certainly looking for an agreement on here. Either someone changes their mind to my viewpoint, or someone changes my mind to theirs (which can easily be done by providing evidence of their claims).

But the status of the data and the experiment depend only on the properties of the data and the properties of the experiment. The fact that, oh, the data was gathered and the experiment was conducted in a partriarchal system and 99% of the people doing the work were white men has no bearing on the status of the data or the experiment, the defenders of science seem to insist. Add it all up and I see the defenders of science taking an absolutist position with respect to science and its findings.

You're confusing arguing from a position of confidence due to strong empirical backing, from arguing from an absolutist position.

If you have a ton of evidence to support your case and you argue strongly in favour of it, that is not absolutism if you keep in mind that the data is subject to revision or improvement.

And again, anyone who understands science would understand that point as well.

If we were talking about the goals of various intellectual traditions that might be true.

But we are not talking about the goals of various intellectual traditions. We are talking about absolutists and relativists. Specifically, we are talking about how some people seem to take an absolutist position with respect to A but at the same time behave as if A is relative. A could be a number of different things, not just "science". I wish that right now I could provide an example other than "science", but my time is too limited.

And again, scientists , etc would never argue from an absolutist position.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about.

If a stone is dropped and it falls to the ground, one possible way of looking at it might be that gravity pulled the stone to the ground while another possible way of looking at it might be that a god put the stone in his/her left hand and the Earth in his/her right hand and brought the hands together until the stone and the Earth met. If a person believes that the former way of looking at it is absolute then it follows that the latter way of looking at it is not a threat in any way. If a person believes that the first way of looking at it is absolute then it follows that the only threat to that first way of looking at it would be something within that way of looking at it itself. It is my observation, however, that a lot of people who believe that something is absolute behave as if it is threatened by something other than itself. I asked why such people behave in such a way.

Several responses have been something like, "But science is not absolute" (and the thread is not even about science; the behavior of people who defend science was simply given as one example of the behavior in question). Apparently there is a miscommunication or some other problem with the words "absolute" and "absolutist". I gave a clear definition: when something is absolute it does not depend on other things. I doubt that people who have responded with "But science is not absolute" believe that, say, the existence of gravity depends on things like the sex/gender of the person believing in the existence of gravity, whether or not the person occupying the Oval Office believes in the existence of gravity, etc. I think that it is safe to say that they believe that the existence of gravity depends only on the existence of gravity. If nothing was absolute in such a way then the practice of science would be futile--there would be nothing that anybody could grasp.

The problem, I have suggested, is that when one grasps something in a manner so extreme that he/she is anchored to it then it plays right into the hands of those who would have us all believe that nothing can be grasped at all--the people I call relativists. If you back yourself into a corner then you play right into the hands of people who want to corner you. Once they have got you cornered the only escape is to fight your way out of the corner. Your fight to escape the corner is, in their view, further proof of the relative nature of every position.

The solution, I have suggested, is to gently grasp everything rather than firmly grasp a few things.

Of course, people probably still want to say, "Oh, you are talking about objectivity". No, objective is not the same thing as absolute. Objectivity is a value held or not held by the observer/thinker. Objectivity is not about being able to grasp something. Objectivity is about trying to grasp something in a way that is most reliable for everybody.

If there is an absoluteness--an essence--to something then it is not threatened by co-existence with other things. I have tried to avoid using words like post-modernism, deconstructionism, etc. Those words connote things that I am probably not trying to say and that would be a distraction. But if I have to I will put it this way: if something cannot be deconstructed, then why do those who believe that it cannot be deconstructed act as if the presence or absence of something other than it will lead to its deconstruction? If something cannot be deconstructed then the act of deconstructing it is illusory. Why do those who believe that something cannot be deconstructed help fan the flames of the illusory enterprise of deconstructing it? Even if one does not find my strategy of humbly acquainting one's self with as much of the absolute world as possible to be a good idea surely he/she can see that it would be prudent to at least say nothing to those lost in illusory attempts at deconstruction. But instead I see people who are in tune to the absolute engaged with those who seek to destroy any notion of the absolute, and seemingly out of fear and insecurity. Why?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

And here you're wrong. Anyone who knows a damn thing about science would openly admit the data or findings are not an absolute...

I believe you mean that the data is not absolutely correct and that the findings are tentative.

Nobody has said anything to the contrary. The only thing that I have said is that science itself is absolute (its social form may change, it may get funded more or less, it may even be given a different name, but it is never dissolved) and that its findings are absolute concepts (things outside of the findings themselves do not dissolve them; they may be rejected or accepted in varying degrees, but they are not dissolved by, oh, the fact that 99% of the people who produced them where white men).

There may be data we have not yet discovered that would alter our results, etc.

When those people argue from a scientific viewpoint, they take the view that this is true to the best of our knowledge...

In other words, scientific explanations are tentative.

That has already been acknowledged in several previous posts. And such acknowledgement was accompanied by reminders that it is irrelevant to this thread.

Furthermore they are justified in taking that position because invariably they must have testable evidence backing them up if their argument is scientifically valid...

I believe that you mean that for a proposition to be scientific it must be falsifiable.

I would add that the fact that the money being used to make and test the proposition was stolen through military conquest has no real bearing on the status of the proposition. That is because even if the money funding the formulation and testing of the proposition was acquired in the most morally acceptable way nothing about the proposition or how it can be tested would be changed. That is why I have been saying that science and its findings are absolute--that they depend only on themselves.

I also believe there are absolutes, those absolutes are the "facts" about the universe we then investigate. It is an absolute that the sky is blue (on a cloudless sunny day), etc. It's also an absolute that quantum gravity exists and works, we don't know how it works though.

What is not absolute then is our interpretation and ideas based around what we know about quantum gravity. The facts are the facts, and those aren't going to change. What will change (and therefore is not absolute) is how we view and understand the facts. One day we'll figure out how quantum gravity works, but until that happens our views will likely change a few times...

I believe that I have already more than covered all of that in this post and previous posts.

And again, a scientist or anyone who understands science at all would never take an absolutist position on scientific data or findings...

First of all, I have never really said anything about "scientists". I have simply observed the behavior of people I call "the defenders of science".

Meanwhile, yes, nobody who "understands science at all" would ever say, "This is the way reality is, and that's final!". But nobody has argued that they do or that they would.

What has been said is that neither science nor anything discovered through the practice of science can be dissolved or destroyed by non-science or non-findings-of-science. Because they cannot be dissolved by external things--because they are absolute--they are not threatened by, say, the Intelligent Design movement using political maneuvering to try to change the legal definition of science.

But the people I call the defenders of science act like things like the Intelligent Design movement can destroy science and that therefore science is relative. I have asked why.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I believe you mean that the data is not absolutely correct and that the findings are tentative.

Nobody has said anything to the contrary. The only thing that I have said is that science itself is absolute (its social form may change, it may get funded more or less, it may even be given a different name, but it is never dissolved) and that its findings are absolute concepts (things outside of the findings themselves do not dissolve them; they may be rejected or accepted in varying degrees, but they are not dissolved by, oh, the fact that 99% of the people who produced them where white men).









In other words, scientific explanations are tentative.

That has already been acknowledged in several previous posts. And such acknowledgement was accompanied by reminders that it is irrelevant to this thread.









I believe that you mean that for a proposition to be scientific it must be falsifiable.

I would add that the fact that the money being used to make and test the proposition was stolen through military conquest has no real bearing on the status of the proposition. That is because even if the money funding the formulation and testing of the proposition was acquired in the most morally acceptable way nothing about the proposition or how it can be tested would be changed. That is why I have been saying that science and its findings are absolute--that they depend only on themselves.









I believe that I have already more than covered all of that in this post and previous posts.









First of all, I have never really said anything about "scientists". I have simply observed the behavior of people I call "the defenders of science".

Meanwhile, yes, nobody who "understands science at all" would ever say, "This is the way reality is, and that's final!". But nobody has argued that they do or that they would.

What has been said is that neither science nor anything discovered through the practice of science can be dissolved or destroyed by non-science or non-findings-of-science. Because they cannot be dissolved by external things--because they are absolute--they are not threatened by, say, the Intelligent Design movement using political maneuvering to try to change the legal definition of science.

But the people I call the defenders of science act like things like the Intelligent Design movement can destroy science and that therefore science is relative. I have asked why.

Ok, can you please state your definitions and argument clearly then? Any time I try to write a rebuttal I'm basically met with a "that's not what I mean" response. So to be honest, I have absolutely no idea what you're even trying to argue anymore.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

For a guy who has limited time or internet access, you sure write long drawn out responses...

I suppose it takes "long drawn out responses" to bring everybody back from the tangents that some people have traveled far away on.

Identifying a fallacy can easily be done with a two minute google search...

That's fine--if a person has two minutes left.

, so to be frank, I'm not sympathetic when you want to incorrectly accuse others of fallacies, then claim you're justified in doing so because you lack time to understand what you're talking about...

I did not "accuse" anybody of anything.

It was mostly an indirect reference to how people at Christian Forums overuse the pointing out of formal and informal fallacies and how I do not have time to play that game.

I am not saying that people should not point out fallacies in logic. I am saying that if everybody looks for every opportunity to use the same weapon it loses its effectiveness.

People should point out fallacies in logic judiciously. That would mean that it would be a rarely used but highly effective exception, rather than the tiresome rule.

Either someone changes their mind to my viewpoint, or someone changes my mind to theirs (which can easily be done by providing evidence of their claims)...

Philosopher means "seeker of wisdom", it is my understanding. This is a philosophy forum.

I am not seeking to persuade--I am seeking wisdom.

And, really, all that I have done with this thread is ask a question.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Ok, can you please state your definitions and argument clearly then? Any time I try to write a rebuttal I'm basically met with a "that's not what I mean" response. So to be honest, I have absolutely no idea what you're even trying to argue anymore.

I asked why people who know better (or should know better) help fan the flames of relativism.

I then gave one possible answer: they beat their absolutist chests, display their non-relativist credentials (because they consciously or sub-consciously don't want to look weak, maybe?) and in the process back themselves into a corner and give the relativists the high ground.

I then suggested a way to avoid being backed into a corner like that: avoid the absolutist/relativist trap entirely and, with humility, approach all human thought as if it might contain life-changing, the-way-I-see-the-world-changing wisdom. I called that respecting all honest, serious human thought equally.

But apparently I made two mistakes:

1.) Bringing up science.

2.) Using the words science and absolute in close proximity to each other.


I guess that using a buzzword was enough of a mistake. Use that buzzword with a volatile word like "absolute"...take cover!

I simply made some observations, threw out a few of my thoughts about those observations, and invited everybody to contribute their own thoughts.

I simply observed that in a world where we all seem to be increasingly tempted by relativism (and I asserted that I don't buy it--that I maintain that there are absolutes) that the people who are in tune to the absolute are their own worst enemies and are playing right into the hands of those who it seems would have us all believe that absolute is an illusion.

It is my observation that even conflict between two competing absolutes helps fuel relativism. Maybe that is why I intuit that it would be better to humbly respect all thinkers. It is better to have all non-relativists cooperating in the search for ever-elusive absolutes than it is to have them help relativism grow by spending resources engaging with its proponents or by beating each other up.

If relativism is wrong, most of us non-relativists sure don't act like it, in my estimation.

Maybe money and power have corrupted people too much for them to stay focused on clarifying absolutes. But, again, that is an explanation that I came up with.

I was interested in hearing what explanations other people might have. Therefore, I asked.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's fine--if a person has two minutes left.

Try this... next time you log on, look up logical fallacies, print out the page then you have it for future reference.

I did not "accuse" anybody of anything.

Yes you did, you accused him of having a fallacious argument.

It was mostly an indirect reference to how people at Christian Forums overuse the pointing out of formal and informal fallacies and how I do not have time to play that game.

I am not saying that people should not point out fallacies in logic. I am saying that if everybody looks for every opportunity to use the same weapon it loses its effectiveness.

People should point out fallacies in logic judiciously. That would mean that it would be a rarely used but highly effective exception, rather than the tiresome rule.

Nonsense. If someone is using a fallacious argument, it should be pointed out at each and every possible instance.

It's not a game, it's a response detailing why an argument someone is using is logically invalid and therefore incorrect. It's not our fault that there happens to be a lot of fallacious arguments put forward on Christian websites.

In short, If people want to hear less pointing out of fallacies, then they should stop positing fallacious arguments.

Philosopher means "seeker of wisdom", it is my understanding. This is a philosophy forum.

I am not seeking to persuade--I am seeking wisdom.

And, really, all that I have done with this thread is ask a question.

And that's fair enough, asking questions often leads to wisdom. Assuming that you can verify and then accept the answers that are given.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I asked why people who know better (or should know better) help fan the flames of relativism.

I then gave one possible answer: they beat their absolutist chests, display their non-relativist credentials (because they consciously or sub-consciously don't want to look weak, maybe?) and in the process back themselves into a corner and give the relativists the high ground.

I then suggested a way to avoid being backed into a corner like that: avoid the absolutist/relativist trap entirely and, with humility, approach all human thought as if it might contain life-changing, the-way-I-see-the-world-changing wisdom. I called that respecting all honest, serious human thought equally.

But apparently I made two mistakes:

1.) Bringing up science.

2.) Using the words science and absolute in close proximity to each other.


I guess that using a buzzword was enough of a mistake. Use that buzzword with a volatile word like "absolute"...take cover!

I simply made some observations, threw out a few of my thoughts about those observations, and invited everybody to contribute their own thoughts.

I simply observed that in a world where we all seem to be increasingly tempted by relativism (and I asserted that I don't buy it--that I maintain that there are absolutes) that the people who are in tune to the absolute are their own worst enemies and are playing right into the hands of those who it seems would have us all believe that absolute is an illusion.

It is my observation that even conflict between two competing absolutes helps fuel relativism. Maybe that is why I intuit that it would be better to humbly respect all thinkers. It is better to have all non-relativists cooperating in the search for ever-elusive absolutes than it is to have them help relativism grow by spending resources engaging with its proponents or by beating each other up.

If relativism is wrong, most of us non-relativists sure don't act like it, in my estimation.

Maybe money and power have corrupted people too much for them to stay focused on clarifying absolutes. But, again, that is an explanation that I came up with.

I was interested in hearing what explanations other people might have. Therefore, I asked.

The terms absolutism and relativism can have different definitions depending who you are talking to.

So, how are you defining the two?