Culliing Grey Squirrels

<amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:18cnl2ttggftp6jtc4ptbgbminr8j54pan@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:nt7nl21c158gg4g4hocdbghkpemgq8eqp6@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:10:43 -0800, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:ea0nl2lp0ddl8e8igdi52r50pde6vnb9tn@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:14:14 -0800, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:p1rll2lavs9didi1p7eig37ircipednej7@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:12:01 -0800, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>>>>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>>>>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>>>>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>>>>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Truth are lies are quite similar in this respect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not quite
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When lies are "accepted as self evident" the fallacy is exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>By what magic?
>>>>>
>>>>> No magic at all.
>>>>
>>>>It must be magic, how else can we look at an idea and know if it is
>>>>truth
>>>>or
>>>>lies without *some other* knowledge which has not been stipulated?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't need other knowledge if it's "self evident".
>>
>>How does anything become "self-evident" except by examining a lot of
>>information and knowledge and making a determination from it?
>>
>
> That's not self evident. That's gathering evidence and coming to a
> conclusion.

Take a look at the quote. Something becoming "self-evident" occurs at the
end of a process of reflection and debate.

>>>>>>> Quite the reverse with truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not so, when something is accepted as self-evident it becomes
>>>>>>indistinguishable from truth. Many of Einstein's theories of matter
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>energy fall into this category.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. If a lie becomes self evident it is easily distinguishable
>>>>> from the truth.
>>>>
>>>>When a lie "becomes self-evident" as when it was self-evident that the
>>>>world
>>>>was flat,
>>>
>>> It was never self evident that the world was flat.
>>
>>Yes it was, for most of human history.
>>
>
> Not it wasn't. It was a belief people had. It couldn't be self
> evident that it was flat if it was round.

You're harbouring a misconception.

>>>>or that men were inherently morally superior to women,
>>>
>>> Nor that.
>>
>>That is "self-evident" to probably more people in the world today than
>>believe it to be false.
>>
>
> Belief is not self evident. You've given the game away :-))

Everything is based on beliefs.

>>>>it was not
>>>>in any way distinguishable from the truth *to the observer*, which is
>>>>the
>>>>only way "self-evident" has any meaning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If lies are not distinguishable from the truth they're not "self
>>> evident".
>>
>>You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is a "truth"
>>independent
>>of our perception of it.
>>
>
> Not at all.

Yes you are, you continually refer to "self-evident truth" as if it exists
without an observer.

>>> Self evidence means evidence in itself.
>>
>>All evidence, all information and knowledge implies perception, and hence
>>a
>>perceiver to receive it. "Evidence in itself" is essentially meaningless
>>without an observer to assess it.
>>
>
> No Evidence in itself is quite the opposite.

No it is not, evidence is *observed* phemonena.

>>>There was never any evidence
>>> in itself that the world was flat or that men were inherently morally
>>> superior to women. They were beliefs but not self evident.
>>
>>Those beliefs were "self-evident truth" to the people who believed them.
>>
>
> No, they didn't know.

They knew to the best of their ability at the time, as we do, so they
referred to it as "self-evident".

>>In fact, bottom line here, the phrase "self-evident" is nothing more than
>>a
>>rhetorical phrase meaning "a deeply held belief". When the Declaration of
>>Independence used the term that is what they meant, "It is *our deeply
>>held
>>belief* that all men are created equal..".
>
> No. Beliefs have nothing to do with self evidence.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
In epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof.

Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For most
others, the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of
self-evidence. However, one's belief that someone else is conscious is not
epistemically self-evident.

The following metaphysical propositions are often said to be self-evident:

a.. A finite whole is greater than any of its parts.
b.. It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time
in the same manner.
Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered fallacious or
abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be
self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that disagreement
with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it.

<->


> People believe in
> God but that doesn't mean a God is self evident.

Now you're denying the antecedent. Self-evidence involves a belief that
something is obviously true without requiring proof. That does not mean that
all beliefs imply self-evidence.

I guess we've reached an impasse, you are totally enamoured of this false
perception of yours, and I see no sign that you are capable of moving off
it. I don't feel like beating my head against a brick wall.


> Angus Macmillan
> www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
> www.killhunting.org
> www.con-servation.org.uk
>
> All truth passes through three stages:
> First, it is ridiculed;
> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

Geoff wrote:

> Prat.

Coming from you, Geoff, I take that as a compliment and an indication
that I'm doing something right.

Death to the grey squirrel
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:02:05 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:

>
><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:18cnl2ttggftp6jtc4ptbgbminr8j54pan@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:nt7nl21c158gg4g4hocdbghkpemgq8eqp6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:10:43 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:ea0nl2lp0ddl8e8igdi52r50pde6vnb9tn@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:14:14 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:p1rll2lavs9didi1p7eig37ircipednej7@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:12:01 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>>>>>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>>>>>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>>>>>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>>>>>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Truth are lies are quite similar in this respect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not quite
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When lies are "accepted as self evident" the fallacy is exposed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By what magic?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No magic at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>It must be magic, how else can we look at an idea and know if it is
>>>>>truth
>>>>>or
>>>>>lies without *some other* knowledge which has not been stipulated?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't need other knowledge if it's "self evident".
>>>
>>>How does anything become "self-evident" except by examining a lot of
>>>information and knowledge and making a determination from it?
>>>
>>
>> That's not self evident. That's gathering evidence and coming to a
>> conclusion.
>
>Take a look at the quote. Something becoming "self-evident" occurs at the
>end of a process of reflection and debate.
>

I have. Ridicule and violent opposition is not reflection and debate.


>>>>>>>> Quite the reverse with truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not so, when something is accepted as self-evident it becomes
>>>>>>>indistinguishable from truth. Many of Einstein's theories of matter
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>energy fall into this category.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense. If a lie becomes self evident it is easily distinguishable
>>>>>> from the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>When a lie "becomes self-evident" as when it was self-evident that the
>>>>>world
>>>>>was flat,
>>>>
>>>> It was never self evident that the world was flat.
>>>
>>>Yes it was, for most of human history.
>>>
>>
>> Not it wasn't. It was a belief people had. It couldn't be self
>> evident that it was flat if it was round.
>
>You're harbouring a misconception.
>

No, they were.




>>>>>or that men were inherently morally superior to women,
>>>>
>>>> Nor that.
>>>
>>>That is "self-evident" to probably more people in the world today than
>>>believe it to be false.
>>>
>>
>> Belief is not self evident. You've given the game away :-))
>
>Everything is based on beliefs.
>

Not at all. Some things are self evident.


>>>>>it was not
>>>>>in any way distinguishable from the truth *to the observer*, which is
>>>>>the
>>>>>only way "self-evident" has any meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If lies are not distinguishable from the truth they're not "self
>>>> evident".
>>>
>>>You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is a "truth"
>>>independent
>>>of our perception of it.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all.
>
>Yes you are, you continually refer to "self-evident truth" as if it exists
>without an observer.
>

I suppose everything is "observed" not just something that is self
evident. But you used observation as a means of disputing something as
true or untrue which is not the case if it is self evident.



>>>> Self evidence means evidence in itself.
>>>
>>>All evidence, all information and knowledge implies perception, and hence
>>>a
>>>perceiver to receive it. "Evidence in itself" is essentially meaningless
>>>without an observer to assess it.
>>>
>>
>> No Evidence in itself is quite the opposite.
>
>No it is not, evidence is *observed* phemonena.

Sure, evidence is just that but not "self evidence".; and that's what
we're discussing.

>
>>>>There was never any evidence
>>>> in itself that the world was flat or that men were inherently morally
>>>> superior to women. They were beliefs but not self evident.
>>>
>>>Those beliefs were "self-evident truth" to the people who believed them.
>>>
>>
>> No, they didn't know.
>
>They knew to the best of their ability at the time, as we do, so they
>referred to it as "self-evident".
>

Knowing something to the best of your ability does not mean the
knowledge is self evident.


>>>In fact, bottom line here, the phrase "self-evident" is nothing more than
>>>a
>>>rhetorical phrase meaning "a deeply held belief". When the Declaration of
>>>Independence used the term that is what they meant, "It is *our deeply
>>>held
>>>belief* that all men are created equal..".
>>
>> No. Beliefs have nothing to do with self evidence.
>
>Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>In epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true
>by understanding its meaning without proof.

Sure.

>
>Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For most
>others, the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of
>self-evidence. However, one's belief that someone else is conscious is not
>epistemically self-evident.

So none of this is self evident.

>
>The following metaphysical propositions are often said to be self-evident:
>
> a.. A finite whole is greater than any of its parts.
> b.. It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time
>in the same manner.

I think I could go along with that.


>Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered fallacious or
>abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be
>self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that disagreement
>with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it.
>

A claim to self evidence doesn't make it so.


><->
>
>
>> People believe in
>> God but that doesn't mean a God is self evident.
>
>Now you're denying the antecedent. Self-evidence involves a belief that
>something is obviously true without requiring proof. That does not mean that
>all beliefs imply self-evidence.
>

We seem to agree on this. I have already said that.


>I guess we've reached an impasse, you are totally enamoured of this false
>perception of yours, and I see no sign that you are capable of moving off
>it.

I think we have; but it's not a false perception.


>I don't feel like beating my head against a brick wall.

If you were to bash your head against a brick wall an observer would
be quite entitled to reach the conclusion that you were bashing your
head against a brick wall, without involving "the process of
reflection and debate" That's self evidence :-))



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

<amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:02:05 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:18cnl2ttggftp6jtc4ptbgbminr8j54pan@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:nt7nl21c158gg4g4hocdbghkpemgq8eqp6@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:10:43 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:ea0nl2lp0ddl8e8igdi52r50pde6vnb9tn@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:14:14 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:p1rll2lavs9didi1p7eig37ircipednej7@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:12:01 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>>>>>>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>>>>>>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>>>>>>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Truth are lies are quite similar in this respect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not quite
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When lies are "accepted as self evident" the fallacy is exposed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>By what magic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No magic at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It must be magic, how else can we look at an idea and know if it is
>>>>>>truth
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>lies without *some other* knowledge which has not been stipulated?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't need other knowledge if it's "self evident".
>>>>
>>>>How does anything become "self-evident" except by examining a lot of
>>>>information and knowledge and making a determination from it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not self evident. That's gathering evidence and coming to a
>>> conclusion.
>>
>>Take a look at the quote. Something becoming "self-evident" occurs at the
>>end of a process of reflection and debate.
>>
>
> I have. Ridicule and violent opposition is not reflection and debate.

They are all stages in the process of an idea going from marginal to broad
acceptance. In the end, when an idea enjoys strong popularity is when people
use the term "self-evident".

>>>>>>>>> Quite the reverse with truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not so, when something is accepted as self-evident it becomes
>>>>>>>>indistinguishable from truth. Many of Einstein's theories of matter
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>energy fall into this category.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense. If a lie becomes self evident it is easily
>>>>>>> distinguishable
>>>>>>> from the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When a lie "becomes self-evident" as when it was self-evident that the
>>>>>>world
>>>>>>was flat,
>>>>>
>>>>> It was never self evident that the world was flat.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it was, for most of human history.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not it wasn't. It was a belief people had. It couldn't be self
>>> evident that it was flat if it was round.
>>
>>You're harbouring a misconception.
>>
>
> No, they were.

They were wrong about the shape of the earth, but the world being flat was
self evident to them. Your misconception is your belief that fact and
self-evidence are synonymous.

>>>>>>or that men were inherently morally superior to women,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor that.
>>>>
>>>>That is "self-evident" to probably more people in the world today than
>>>>believe it to be false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Belief is not self evident. You've given the game away :-))
>>
>>Everything is based on beliefs.
>>
>
> Not at all. Some things are self evident.

Name some of them. It's debatable whether or not anything is self-evident in
the formal sense, but certainly not very many things are. Perhaps the fact
that you exist can be said to be one, that's about it, and even that is
still a belief.

>>>>>>it was not
>>>>>>in any way distinguishable from the truth *to the observer*, which is
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>only way "self-evident" has any meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If lies are not distinguishable from the truth they're not "self
>>>>> evident".
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is a "truth"
>>>>independent
>>>>of our perception of it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>
>>Yes you are, you continually refer to "self-evident truth" as if it exists
>>without an observer.
>>
>
> I suppose everything is "observed" not just something that is self
> evident. But you used observation as a means of disputing something as
> true or untrue which is not the case if it is self evident.

It appears to me that you have constructed a definition in you mind that is
neither the formal meaning of self-evident nor the rhetorical meaning. The
quote you are using in your signature is using it in the rhetorical.
>>>>> Self evidence means evidence in itself.
>>>>
>>>>All evidence, all information and knowledge implies perception, and
>>>>hence
>>>>a
>>>>perceiver to receive it. "Evidence in itself" is essentially meaningless
>>>>without an observer to assess it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No Evidence in itself is quite the opposite.
>>
>>No it is not, evidence is *observed* phemonena.
>
> Sure, evidence is just that but not "self evidence".; and that's what
> we're discussing.

See above.

>>
>>>>>There was never any evidence
>>>>> in itself that the world was flat or that men were inherently morally
>>>>> superior to women. They were beliefs but not self evident.
>>>>
>>>>Those beliefs were "self-evident truth" to the people who believed them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, they didn't know.
>>
>>They knew to the best of their ability at the time, as we do, so they
>>referred to it as "self-evident".
>>
>
> Knowing something to the best of your ability does not mean the
> knowledge is self evident.

To the best of one's ability is the highest form of knowing.

>>>>In fact, bottom line here, the phrase "self-evident" is nothing more
>>>>than
>>>>a
>>>>rhetorical phrase meaning "a deeply held belief". When the Declaration
>>>>of
>>>>Independence used the term that is what they meant, "It is *our deeply
>>>>held
>>>>belief* that all men are created equal..".
>>>
>>> No. Beliefs have nothing to do with self evidence.
>>
>>Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>In epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be
>>true
>>by understanding its meaning without proof.
>
> Sure.
>
>>
>>Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For
>>most
>>others, the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of
>>self-evidence. However, one's belief that someone else is conscious is not
>>epistemically self-evident.
>
> So none of this is self evident.
>
>>
>>The following metaphysical propositions are often said to be self-evident:
>>
>> a.. A finite whole is greater than any of its parts.
>> b.. It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time
>>in the same manner.
>
> I think I could go along with that.

But it would still be a belief arrived at through contemplation.
>
>
>>Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered fallacious or
>>abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be
>>self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that disagreement
>>with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it.
>>
>
> A claim to self evidence doesn't make it so.

What does make it so?


>>> People believe in
>>> God but that doesn't mean a God is self evident.
>>
>>Now you're denying the antecedent. Self-evidence involves a belief that
>>something is obviously true without requiring proof. That does not mean
>>that
>>all beliefs imply self-evidence.
>>
>
> We seem to agree on this. I have already said that.

Your argument directly above said the opposite.
>
>
>>I guess we've reached an impasse, you are totally enamoured of this false
>>perception of yours, and I see no sign that you are capable of moving off
>>it.
>
> I think we have; but it's not a false perception.

Yes it is. There are two ways to understand the term "self-evident", one is
a strict and formal way, and almost nothing qualifies beyond "I think,
therefore I am" and the other is rhetorical, meaning "believed most deeply
to be true". You're mixing the two to a very loose effect.
>
>
>>I don't feel like beating my head against a brick wall.
>
> If you were to bash your head against a brick wall an observer would
> be quite entitled to reach the conclusion that you were bashing your
> head against a brick wall, without involving "the process of
> reflection and debate" That's self evidence :-))

I might be an actor playing out a scene for some hidden camera (Candid
Camera), the evidence may be deceiving you. In any case, now you are
reducing a discussion about a quotation that is about ideas into one about
mundane physical events. Are you interested in finding a deeper
understanding of Schopenhauer's words or is this just about trying to
extract a "win"? If it's the latter, which so far it appears to be, then I
give up, you win.

>
>
>
> Angus Macmillan
> www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
> www.killhunting.org
> www.con-servation.org.uk
>
> All truth passes through three stages:
> First, it is ridiculed;
> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

"Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote in message
news:12lmt8ndmeqbq3c@news.supernews.com...
>
> <amacmil304 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
> news:p1rll2lavs9didi1p7eig37ircipednej7@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:12:01 -0800, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
> >
> >><amacmil304 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote
> >>> All truth passes through three stages:
> >>> First, it is ridiculed;
> >>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> >>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> >>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
> >>
> >>Truth are lies are quite similar in this respect.
> >>
> >
> > Not quite
> >
> > When lies are "accepted as self evident" the fallacy is exposed.
>
> By what magic?
>
> > Quite the reverse with truth.
>
> Not so, when something is accepted as self-evident it becomes
> indistinguishable from truth. Many of Einstein's theories of matter and
> energy fall into this category.
>
>
>

I think you two may be at cross purposes on this.

When Angus writes of lies 'becoming self evident', I believe he means it
becoming self evident that they are untruths. For example, many creation
myths, flat earth, phlogiston theory, etc.

Whereas I think you were referring to the fact that many
lies/inaccuracies/untruths may be/have been treated as self evident truths,
e.g. many creation myths, flat earth, phlogiston theory, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

On 16 Nov 2006 04:25:45 -0800, "Gwyddno" <Ieithgi RemoveThis @googlemail.com>
wrote:

>
>Geoff wrote:
>
>> Prat.
>
>Coming from you, Geoff, I take that as a compliment and an indication
>that I'm doing something right.

Prat.
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:19:50 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:

><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:02:05 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:18cnl2ttggftp6jtc4ptbgbminr8j54pan@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:nt7nl21c158gg4g4hocdbghkpemgq8eqp6@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:10:43 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:ea0nl2lp0ddl8e8igdi52r50pde6vnb9tn@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:14:14 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:p1rll2lavs9didi1p7eig37ircipednej7@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:12:01 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>>>>>>>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>>>>>>>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Truth are lies are quite similar in this respect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not quite
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When lies are "accepted as self evident" the fallacy is exposed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>By what magic?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No magic at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It must be magic, how else can we look at an idea and know if it is
>>>>>>>truth
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>lies without *some other* knowledge which has not been stipulated?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't need other knowledge if it's "self evident".
>>>>>
>>>>>How does anything become "self-evident" except by examining a lot of
>>>>>information and knowledge and making a determination from it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not self evident. That's gathering evidence and coming to a
>>>> conclusion.
>>>
>>>Take a look at the quote. Something becoming "self-evident" occurs at the
>>>end of a process of reflection and debate.
>>>
>>
>> I have. Ridicule and violent opposition is not reflection and debate.
>
>They are all stages in the process of an idea going from marginal to broad
>acceptance. In the end, when an idea enjoys strong popularity is when people
>use the term "self-evident".

Strong popularity does not mean something is self evident.

>
>>>>>>>>>> Quite the reverse with truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Not so, when something is accepted as self-evident it becomes
>>>>>>>>>indistinguishable from truth. Many of Einstein's theories of matter
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>energy fall into this category.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nonsense. If a lie becomes self evident it is easily
>>>>>>>> distinguishable
>>>>>>>> from the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When a lie "becomes self-evident" as when it was self-evident that the
>>>>>>>world
>>>>>>>was flat,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was never self evident that the world was flat.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it was, for most of human history.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not it wasn't. It was a belief people had. It couldn't be self
>>>> evident that it was flat if it was round.
>>>
>>>You're harbouring a misconception.
>>>
>>
>> No, they were.
>
>They were wrong about the shape of the earth, but the world being flat was
>self evident to them. Your misconception is your belief that fact and
>self-evidence are synonymous.

It was a mistaken belief. Unless things have changed over time they
only needed to look at a sea horizon :-)

>
>>>>>>>or that men were inherently morally superior to women,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor that.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is "self-evident" to probably more people in the world today than
>>>>>believe it to be false.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Belief is not self evident. You've given the game away :-))
>>>
>>>Everything is based on beliefs.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. Some things are self evident.
>
>Name some of them. It's debatable whether or not anything is self-evident in
>the formal sense, but certainly not very many things are. Perhaps the fact
>that you exist can be said to be one, that's about it, and even that is
>still a belief.

I can assure you it's not a belief.

>
>>>>>>>it was not
>>>>>>>in any way distinguishable from the truth *to the observer*, which is
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>only way "self-evident" has any meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If lies are not distinguishable from the truth they're not "self
>>>>>> evident".
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is a "truth"
>>>>>independent
>>>>>of our perception of it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all.
>>>
>>>Yes you are, you continually refer to "self-evident truth" as if it exists
>>>without an observer.
>>>
>>
>> I suppose everything is "observed" not just something that is self
>> evident. But you used observation as a means of disputing something as
>> true or untrue which is not the case if it is self evident.
>
>It appears to me that you have constructed a definition in you mind that is
>neither the formal meaning of self-evident nor the rhetorical meaning. The
>quote you are using in your signature is using it in the rhetorical.

Care to define both?

>>>>>> Self evidence means evidence in itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>All evidence, all information and knowledge implies perception, and
>>>>>hence
>>>>>a
>>>>>perceiver to receive it. "Evidence in itself" is essentially meaningless
>>>>>without an observer to assess it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No Evidence in itself is quite the opposite.
>>>
>>>No it is not, evidence is *observed* phemonena.
>>
>> Sure, evidence is just that but not "self evidence".; and that's what
>> we're discussing.
>
>See above.
>

?


>>>

>>>>>>There was never any evidence
>>>>>> in itself that the world was flat or that men were inherently morally
>>>>>> superior to women. They were beliefs but not self evident.
>>>>>
>>>>>Those beliefs were "self-evident truth" to the people who believed them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, they didn't know.
>>>
>>>They knew to the best of their ability at the time, as we do, so they
>>>referred to it as "self-evident".
>>>
>>
>> Knowing something to the best of your ability does not mean the
>> knowledge is self evident.
>
>To the best of one's ability is the highest form of knowing.
>

No it's not.

>>>>>In fact, bottom line here, the phrase "self-evident" is nothing more
>>>>>than
>>>>>a
>>>>>rhetorical phrase meaning "a deeply held belief". When the Declaration
>>>>>of
>>>>>Independence used the term that is what they meant, "It is *our deeply
>>>>>held
>>>>>belief* that all men are created equal..".
>>>>
>>>> No. Beliefs have nothing to do with self evidence.
>>>
>>>Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>In epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be
>>>true
>>>by understanding its meaning without proof.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>>
>>>Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For
>>>most
>>>others, the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of
>>>self-evidence. However, one's belief that someone else is conscious is not
>>>epistemically self-evident.
>>
>> So none of this is self evident.
>>
>>>
>>>The following metaphysical propositions are often said to be self-evident:
>>>
>>> a.. A finite whole is greater than any of its parts.
>>> b.. It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time
>>>in the same manner.
>>
>> I think I could go along with that.
>
>But it would still be a belief arrived at through contemplation.

It's not a belief; it's self evident.


>>
>>
>>>Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered fallacious or
>>>abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be
>>>self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that disagreement
>>>with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it.
>>>
>>
>> A claim to self evidence doesn't make it so.
>
>What does make it so?
>
>

It's the self evidence itself that makes it so.


>>>> People believe in
>>>> God but that doesn't mean a God is self evident.
>>>
>>>Now you're denying the antecedent. Self-evidence involves a belief that
>>>something is obviously true without requiring proof. That does not mean
>>>that
>>>all beliefs imply self-evidence.
>>>
>>
>> We seem to agree on this. I have already said that.
>
>Your argument directly above said the opposite.

No it doesn't. Read it again.



>>
>>
>>>I guess we've reached an impasse, you are totally enamoured of this false
>>>perception of yours, and I see no sign that you are capable of moving off
>>>it.
>>
>> I think we have; but it's not a false perception.
>
>Yes it is. There are two ways to understand the term "self-evident", one is
>a strict and formal way, and almost nothing qualifies beyond "I think,
>therefore I am" and the other is rhetorical, meaning "believed most deeply
>to be true". You're mixing the two to a very loose effect.

The latter does not amount to self evidence as I pointed out in the
God example.


>>
>>
>>>I don't feel like beating my head against a brick wall.
>>
>> If you were to bash your head against a brick wall an observer would
>> be quite entitled to reach the conclusion that you were bashing your
>> head against a brick wall, without involving "the process of
>> reflection and debate" That's self evidence :-))
>


>I might be an actor playing out a scene for some hidden camera (Candid
>Camera), the evidence may be deceiving you.

I have to agree with that. But it's deliberate deception.


>In any case, now you are
>reducing a discussion about a quotation that is about ideas into one about
>mundane physical events. Are you interested in finding a deeper
>understanding of Schopenhauer's words or is this just about trying to
>extract a "win"? If it's the latter, which so far it appears to be, then I
>give up, you win.
>

I think in normal circumstances self evidence is that which requires
no proof to come to a conclusion. I accept there are exceptions such
as tricks that can fool people into thing they are real. I also have
accepted that the quote should relate to "some" truth rather than
"all" because there will always be some truth that is not self
evident. However, just to believe something is true does not make it
self evident ie. flat Earth and God.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

"Geoff" <g23434ssd.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tkmol2hkht6hb9bf8ljaii968pc541i57u@4ax.com...
> On 16 Nov 2006 04:25:45 -0800, "Gwyddno" <Ieithgi.DeleteThis@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Geoff wrote:
>>
>>> Prat.
>>
>>Coming from you, Geoff, I take that as a compliment and an indication
>>that I'm doing something right.
>
> Prat.

tsk tsk pete, that is no way to win the friends you'll need when special
branch comes looking
hide the spade remember
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

"Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:12lmt8ndmeqbq3c@news.supernews.com...
>
> <amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:p1rll2lavs9didi1p7eig37ircipednej7@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:12:01 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote
>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>
>>>Truth are lies are quite similar in this respect.
>>>
>>
>> Not quite
>>
>> When lies are "accepted as self evident" the fallacy is exposed.
>
> By what magic?
>
>> Quite the reverse with truth.
>
> Not so, when something is accepted as self-evident it becomes
> indistinguishable from truth. Many of Einstein's theories of matter and
> energy fall into this category.

And the relationship to the culling of tree rats is?

>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

"Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:12ln7jk7vgpaq4b@news.supernews.com...
>
> <amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:ea0nl2lp0ddl8e8igdi52r50pde6vnb9tn@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:14:14 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:p1rll2lavs9didi1p7eig37ircipednej7@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:12:01 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>>>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>>>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>>>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>>>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>>>>
>>>>>Truth are lies are quite similar in this respect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not quite