I’ve spent my morning arguing (to no great effect) with a person who claims to be a professor of logic. The topic, ostensibly, is the Jackson case, and the area of discussion has to do with what constitutes a valid conviction. Moreso, though, we’ve been arguing about epistemology. And I must say, I am literally stunned by the discourse. According to this learned Canadian professor (who posts under the initials ET), humans cannot draw any valid conclusions that aren’t first proven with epistemological certainty—an animal that does not even exist outside of our appeals to some metaphysical realm where Truth resides (a realm with which, by our very natures, we can have no direct contact); and s/he is likewise deeply concerned that humans would dare try to base their judgments on narratives they’ve created by piecing together empirical data and evidence—which is how I always thought the human mind operates.
In short, this “professor” (and I have my doubts as to that appellation) is, in the immediate sense, requiring a standard of proof for a criminal conviction that does not exist in any way that we could possibly know it to be so—and, in a more general sense, is suggesting that any “knowledge” not revealed with empirical certainty is, by necessity, invalid.
Worse still, he’s been joined by a couple of supporters!
Make no mistake: this argument has little to do with the Jackson case (other than incidentally); instead, it has everything to do with the jury system itself, which, under the conditions described by ET for meting out justice, cannot possibly work—and in fact, justice itself can only ever be meted out by some impossible metaphysical entity under such conditions. Quite a philosophical worldview frow a professor who claims to be an atheist.
I’m sorry, but my brain is reeling from these exchanges. I feel like a bird who’s just been told in mid air that it is impossible for him to fly. And I simply cannot do anything else today until I enjoy the mental sorbet that a trip to BestBuy always provides.
Please, go visit the thread and tell me if I’ve lost my mind.
****
update: speaking of surreal…
****
update 2: Suddenly, inexplicably, ET has reinscribed “epistemological certainty” to mean, “I must be reasonably certain that my interpretation of X-situation is a reasonablly accurate re-presentation of that situation.” Or, in short, ET is now saying s/he believes, based on observation and prior epistemological consensus, that what she believes is, in fact, believable. Which of course is exactly the argument I made for being able to come to the conclusions I did—and was told, for my efforts, that my conclusions were specious and invalid because they didn’t meet the very standard of epistemological certainty that ET is now claiming no one but a Platonist need meet.
Christ. Where have you gone, Betrand Russell…?
****
update 3: Also surreally surreal.
Dude, welcome to the Matrix. The Canadian Matrix.
He’s just so damn deep, you can’t see the bottom.
He’s an overeducated idiot.
Whether you’ve lost your mind or not is an independent question.
Wait, tou think he’s overeducated? His suppositions are absolutely moronic. If anything, I would have guessed he’s trying to write way above his pay grade.
Jesus. This is blowing my fucking mind.
That’s it. I quit. Can’t take it no more. Bye.
Jurors can draw any conclusion they like in decisions of guilt or innocence. The rules are that they look at the evidence. Consider it. This is like debating Communism – in a perfect world – sure, it might work like that. But, in this word … juror often use their basest prejudices when rendering judgment. And that is that.
I’m in the middle of reading Windschuttle’s The Killing of History, at the point where he addresses the issue of epistemological certainty, as it applies to the study of History.
Maybe I should go finish reading that chapter before I comment further… ya, I definitely should.
But I am epistemologically certain that ET is a doo-doo head.
ET seems to be an aptly-chosen name for that guy – not only does he set the bar for establishing guilt or innocence somewhere in the Van Allen Belt, but he also seems to have no idea how a jury actually goes about discharging its duty in the real world. He seems to be falling into the sort of semantic trap so beloved of defense attorneys of conflating “beyond a reasonable doubt” with “no possibility of any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.”
The finale of John Carpenter’s “Dark Star” is appropriate here:
Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm… well… I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That’s good. That’s very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.
and so forth and so on. . .not to spoil the ending: the moral of the story is that the only logical response to this kind of thinking is total nihilism.
I think he started out okay but soon revealed his dementia. BTW, this is the first I heard that MJ had homo porn that he showed to boys. Are you certain of this?
The kids not THAT bad…except that he disclaims each bit of evidence for lack of a causal link.
The issue was not “does whatever porn cause whatever behavior” but “is it EVIDENCE that a particular person behaved a certain way, especially in concert with other EVIDENCE”.
Furthermore, it is rare that any one piece of evidence is overwhelmingly persuasive. And, it is easy to dismiss each individual item looking at it in isolation from the rest of the evidence. However, a verdict should be based on whether, after considering the evidence or lack thereof in its entirety the case has been proven beyond a “reasonable” doubt. That is a doubt based on the evidence or lack thereof and reason, not on speculation or sympathy or prejudice, or the desire to avoid a difficult duty.
Um. Could you please repeat the question?
Spam word: course. As in, I feel like I’m back in undergrad, failing my intro to philosophy course.
The folks at samizdata quoted someone once about how to catch out these “all knowledge is an artificial construct” types. Ask them to repeat their beliefs when they’re in an airliner at 30,000. Because the reason they are up there is because a lot of real-world physicists and engineers got their sums right.
Turing = thinking, as in No kiddin’, it’s thinking!
spongeworthy—Bill O’Reilly keeps saying so, and I believe it was shown during by the prosecution during closing arguments.
tachyonshuggy—perfect.
slickdpdx—actually, he doesn’t seem to know what evidence is or how it works. He seems to know what a “thing” is, but that’s not the same.
SI—knowledge is an artificial construct in that the idea of it is man-made and constructed on linguistic premises. Which of course does not keep an airplane from flying. What we have on ET’s part is the exact opposite. He is saying that nothing counts as knowledge that is a construct. Which means that no knowledge at all exists.
(Incidentally, having myself taught persuasion and theory and having studied hermeneutic theory in the exalted atmosphere of Culler and Benn Michaels and Fish and Hayden White, et al, this discussion has me quite shaken. I’d hate to think that my former students are now out there in the world believing that “knowledge” operates in a way in which it does not. Because it’s sure to get them killed. Or at least, sneered at by a Canadian. Which is why I must go to Best Buy. Because of the guilt).
If ET asserts that “no knowledge exists,” isn’t he really saying that no knowledge exists except his knowledge of the “fact” that no knowledge exists?
That fits right in (logically) with, say, declaring that there are no absolute truths.
I am NOT lost; I just couldn’t deal with the whole Michael Jackson scene, man. I’ll come back when it’s time for the seventh set of twenty 80’s movies. . . if there’s pie.
But Jeff, how can you be sure you even HAVE a mind? Wouldn’t that require a level epistemological certainty unattainable in this universe?
Jeff I will be the first to admit that you lost me on a lot of what you and ET were discussing. My take on the MJ trial is simply from a baseball cappers (my term for blue collar) point of view. I just saw it as witnesses against not being credible and therefore reasonable enough doubt existed not to convict. As for your disagreement with ET, I wouldnt let this particular discussion be the only yardstick to measure her ability. She is a very astute observer of Canadian politics, and is not in any way deserving of the disrespect shown by some of the comments.
I know he had porn, but the fact that there wasn’t any man-boy or man-man stuff, along with the lack of actual squeak-holing, made me wonder if the guy was your prototypical child molester. Freak, sure. Baby-raper? I dunno.
Plus I have served on 6 juries. It usually works pretty well, though I can attest that some defendants get slack others would not in those deliberations.
Don’t mistake having an education for knowing anything.
I see things like this and am reminded once again how I grew to hate writing, and switched over to the quantitative sanity of finance and accounting.
But then, I see new descriptive nouns/verbs such as “squeak-holing,” and marvel again at how language can be so freakin’ sweet.
ZEN KOAN #1
If a tree falls in the forest, and a strange forest celebrity invites some forest children to have a sleepout behind the fallen tree, did it really happen if the one of the forest parents broke their deal not to make a sound?
ZEN KOAN #2
What is the sound of one glove clapping?
Epistemological certainty? Knowledge as a construct? Hermeneutic theory? Dude…I had no idea that so many people were high in the afternoons.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.
[Translation: Forget it, Jeff. It’s Canuckistan.]
Um, it was my understanding there would be no story problems in today’s quiz.
OK, Epistemology, Ontology, and Metaphysics were drinking Tequila. Ontology says, “man, I’m hammered.” Epistemolgy says,”how do you know?” Metaphysics just has a shit eating grin and says nothing.
Spongeworthy: The porn was a seduction tool—not for his personal pleasure. Is some guy going to lure you into dropping by, by telling you he has every issue of Man/Boy SqueakHole! or every issue of Playboy?
Am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man? Or am I a man dreaming I am a butterfly?
Is Schroendinger’s cat dead in that box? Or living?
If I drop this paper above my trash can will it fall in? Or will it explode? How can I tell? If there is no evidence the world is real then can I stop eating?
I learned when working for Doctors that they are idiots outside of their specialty. Complete idiots.
If I drop this paper . . .
. . . bend over to pick it up, and happened to be a 13 y/o boy, I better hope MJ is not behind me?
Seriously – what tangible evidence do we have that this so-called “Canada” really exists? Let’s review the hard facts:
1. The flimsy “National Hockey League” cover story has collapsed.
2. ‘Canadian’ bacon? Look for discarde packaging in the dumpster behind your Pizza Hut. It’s made in Arkansas.
2. Pam Anderson? She finally abandoned the ‘Canadian’ charade after this investigator proved her enormous tits were manufactired in Encino.
Nice try, “Canada” hoaxters. Next time try something more plausible, like crop circles.
Why is it that people like ET who spew phrases such as:
“without epistemological certainty, then one cannot come to a conclusion”
always seem to be the very same people who say things like:
“What this world really needs is a 95% marginal income tax rate and a socialized health care system.”
I’ve never understood why these two sets of ideas should, of necessity, go together.
But, in practice, it’s always the same people saying both.
Mr. G.,
“Please, go visit the thread and tell me if I’ve lost my mind.”
Yes, you have lost your mind. That’s why we read your blog.
Or, more to the point, your floundering in the pools of epistemic uncertainty amuses those of us who have attained certainty. At least, I think so.
HCT
Jeff,
I’m not surprised by this guy at all. He was exactly like a half-dozen other people I met in college. I lost patience with his type after an episode like yours.
I’ve noticed a few things these people have in common:
1) VERY quick to establish their intellectual superiority, through means that have nothing to do with logic or the issue at hand. My favorite is when they ask you questions that are total non-sequiturs: “Have you read Kant’s third paper on epistemological certitude?” “Are you saying you’re a Platonist? Yes or No??”
2) Claim that the world, or knowledge, is too complex to ever know, and thus take the most intellectually lazy, childlike approach to “rising above” the complexity—by refusing to attempt to deepen their understanding of it, only in deepening their understanding that it is utterly un-understandable.
They use big words to make themselves sound smart, but they’re the intellectual equivalent of the scrawny pencil-necked loudmouthed know-it-all who sits on the sidelines and “supervises” while everyone else does the heavy lifting. I think they’re ridiculous.
Maybe I’m obtuse—in fact, I think my obtuseness is probably one of my better qualities—but I’m not sure what good “evidence” is if one wants epistemological certainty.
To me, evidence is/are merely points of data that either add information (reduce uncertainty) or add noise (increase uncertainty). I don’t think “evidence” or “data” or “information” can get you to certainty. In fact, I’m not sure one can even get to certainty. We are using minds made up of varying qualities of meat, after all. I think one can approach certainty, and once one is close enough to it, one can make decisions, for good or for ill. Hence the standard of the law is not “absolute truth” but instead is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. You don’t need “absolute metaphysical certitude”.
It seems to me that ET wants a standard of proof that mortals are not capable of, and which an atheist would have trouble even positing. I mean, if God came down and handed him the sentence on a stone tablet, could he even accept it? Yet that seems to be the standard of truth he demands.
Which, to me, proves your point about defense attorneys. They have made the standard a far higher one than I think the law intended. In fact, they have made it unattainable. Because it is impossible to eliminate doubt in a human world, everyone is innocent.
Thank you. My retainer is $20 million, Mr. Jackson.
Heh—Turing word: “human”. I kid you not.
Hell, this happens innumerable times every September when the Senior Philosphy major RA is sitting in a room getting to know some of the smart assed Advance-Placemented-out-of-everything frosh Engineering students when he sits back and says “Well, how do we really KNOW the Earth revolves around the Sun?”.
It’s nothing but mental mastubation.
Hey Mac buckets,
Is Canadian Weed differnet than American Weed and how would I know if I did not experiance it. I better head to Canada
Colossus, you are very much correct. The intersection of the law and the sceintific method was once a research subject of mine. Theorists and educators like Langdell once tried to capitalize on the credibility of the scientific and industrial revolutions by contorting law into what he (and others) called a “science.” But the analogy was never quite right.
For example, it was during this era that the law acquired such terms as “examination” (of witnesses) and “cross-examination.” Rules of decisions were described as “tests” (such as the rational-basis test in Constitutional Equal Protection analysis).
Examinations and tests are concepts from laboratory science.
Imilarly, “proof” is a term borrowed from experimental science. Science and mathematics have a meaning of “proof” that is clearly different from the meaning ascribed to the term in trials.
There is a minor movement among some legal scholars to separate the legal process from the scientific method. The two disciplines were never quite compatible with one another.
Who was it that said that some concepts are so stupid that only an academic could believe them?
Some academic, I’m sure.
And yes, Jeff, you’ve lost it. Getting into an argument with that guy was all the evidence I needed.
Oh shit, is that enough evidence? Epistomalogicallydistarianly speaking, I mean?
Man, that was entertaining. I’ve had this argument many times, and I especially got a kick out of the Sun analogy, Jeff, because it’s one of my old standbys. Do I know with absolute certainty that the Sun will rise tomorrow? Well, no. Would I be willing to liquidate all of my assets, drive to Tahoe, and place a bet on it? Of course.
I don’t think that ET doesn’t understand the concept of taking discrete pieces of evidence and putting them together to form a reasonable conclusion. I think he’s just one of these guys who’s deliberately contrarian because he thinks that makes him seem morally and intellectually superior. Of course, he is stupid enough not to realize how transparent that is.
Hee hee. Spamword, “deep.” I shit you not.
I can’t come to any conclusion as to whether or not you have lost your mind. Your continued and surprisingly patient arguments with some of the commenters there (Really, how many ways are there to argue “you are a rude jerk” or “I have reason to believe the Jackson jury came to the wrong conclusion”?) is not enough, in my view, to stand as evidence as to your state of mind. Not with any sort of epistemological certainty. Causal link! I AM A CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON! BLARG! BLARG!
I read with great interest ET’s logic and Jeff’s and I think the difference is that ET uses deductive logic and Jeff’s using inductive logic. Deductive thinking is very inflexible and is linear in progression. Inductive thinking includes many factors to influence the end such as environment, habits/patterns, trends. It does not operate linearly. It goes out and down and all around. It encompases all possibilties towards a conclusion.
Unfortunately, the jury was very “literal” in the interpretation of their instructions and deductive in their logic. Because of their disdained feelings towards the mother (based on interviews heard on TV and radio after-the-fact) for appearing to be a scam artist, they must have concluded deductively, that MJ was scammed early in their discussions. They forgot to include circumstantial evidence (porno and alcohol), the environment, his pedofile-like behavioral patterns/his habits that MJ used as a pedofile. They “deduced” from the onset that he was the victim to the mother’s “crime” (instead of her kids being the victim of his pedofelia) and then found all the proof to support their hypothesis. They interpreted their responsibility literally, by casting a “reasonable doubt” that MJ was the perp (instigator) compared to the mother (the scam artist/perp)
It is so sad that this has now set a precedence for all pedofiles. And it is even sadder that this ET professor of logic teaches ONLY deductive logic when inductive logic is what encourages creativity, inventions, opportunities, and scientists who operate on a “hunch” based on trends, patterns, projections, etc. We need more inductive thinkers to teach our children how to survive, not deductive thinkers!
The consensus among philosophers at the present time as that the terminology and concepts have become so specialized that only a trained philosopher can make valid statements about ethics or morality. And since only trained philosophers can understand those statements anyway, unless we’re simply willing to invest blind faith in their expertise they’re going to be talking exclusively to themselves while we wander aimlessly in a confusing world about which we know little or nothing. In short the “philosophical project” has been abandoned for the sake of establishing a professional niche along the lines of deference that we reserve for nuclear physicsts. Except that it’s all a lot of nonsense, of course… and they don’t produce a damn thing.
By the way, the text in that verification box is nearly impossible to make out.