Culliing Grey Squirrels

hi pete

cleaned the finger prints off your spade yet
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 06:59:57 -0000, "mariann" <marianncampbell RemoveThis @msn.com>
wrote:

>
>"Richard Watkinson" <rwatki RemoveThis @orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:97bb4a824e.Richard@rwatki.orpheusnet.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> I've never read such drivel in my life.
>>
>> Grey Squirrels are a recognised pest regardless of their effect on Red
>> Squirrel populations.
>>
>> They cause untold damage to trees and nesting woodland bird
>> populations as well as damage to gardens which are close to woodland
>> areas.
>>
>> Total eradication is unlikely but if people realise the problem
>> numbers can be controlled by correctly carried out trapping - believe
>> me.
>>
>> Richard
>
> I have a lot of fun watching squrriels ..they are clever and cute ..I give
>them a handful of monkeynuts every day and they bury them in the neighbours
>garden ...The neighbours have lots of peanut plants everywhere .....Just
>leave them alone ..
>

Quite right Mariann!

To counter the Nazi Conservationists they more people feed them the
better because they'll probably breed faster than they can be caught
and killed. I don't think the proposed law will stop anybody
nurturing existing so called "alien" species.

The more people who feed grey squirrels the better.

Costco sell peanuts for about £8 for 20kilos.
and birdseed for under a fiver for the same amount.





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 

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:31:11 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
<alan.holmes DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message
>news:12lob9no1acij86@news.supernews.com...
>> <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)
>>
>>
>
>
>And the relationship to the culling of tree rats is?
>
>

It's self evident that they are red and grey.

Take your pick.

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 

"BAC" <casswalk.RemoveThis@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1163674564.26011.1@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> "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.

Quite so, a classic example of playing on different colored squares.

> 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.

But that's not what the quotation he uses is saying, it is describing a
process whereby all "truths" pass through a process of ridicule and
rejection before finally being accepted (as "self-evident"). I am not yet
convinced that Angus is taking a coherent position on the concept.

> 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.

Not quite, my comment was simply that the process of being subjected to
ridicule and rejection which Schopenhauer attributes to ideas which we
eventually come to see as "self-evident truth" also happens to bad or wrong
ideas. In fact it happens to most new ideas. I say this in order to dispel
any inclination to believe that the veracity of any particular idea is
enhanced by being aware of this process. It's rather a catchy sounding
rhetorical phrase with more fluff than substance.
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

<amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote
> Strong popularity does not mean something is self evident.

That is in fact one meaning of the term.

[..]
>>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 :-)

It doesn't matter if it was mistaken or not, it was self-evident.

[..]

>>>>> 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.

I can assure you that it is.

[..]

>>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?

Formally a self-evident belief is one that requires no outside evidence, it
proves itself. I exist is the basic one.

Rhetorically "self-evident" refers to something, such as a moral precept,
which we deeply believe to be fundamentally true or consistent with our
humanity, for example the idea all human beings deserve equal and fair
treatment under the law. I think that Schopenhauer was using this meaning.

[..]

>>>>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.

You have a wrong idea of what thet means.

They are things that you believe to be true, i.e. they are consistent with
your worldview. In the world of Quantum mechanics they not be true.

>>>>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.

Now you're talking in circles.

>>>>> 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.

It still does it.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.

Self-evidence can either be argued to exist formally in which case we would
be having a technical philosophical argument or it can be stated as a
rhetorical phrase meaning that something is deeply believed to be true.


>>>>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.

Perhaps, but it proves my point.


>>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.

If you use the term rhetorically then almost anything can be called
self-evident, if you use it formally then almost nothing can.
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

"Alan Holmes" <alan.holmes RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Sc17h.1831$0x.320@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "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?

The answer to that should be apparent.
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:17:07 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:

><amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote
>> Strong popularity does not mean something is self evident.
>
>That is in fact one meaning of the term.
>
>[..]

If it is, it's wrong. There's strong popularity for belief that there
is a God but it's not self evident that there is one.

>>>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 :-)
>
>It doesn't matter if it was mistaken or not, it was self-evident.
>
>[..]
>
Not if they'd looked at the sea horizon.



>>>>>> 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.
>
>I can assure you that it is.
>
>[..]
>

No. It's a "fact" as you have already stated.


>>>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?
>
>Formally a self-evident belief is one that requires no outside evidence, it
>proves itself. I exist is the basic one.
>

It's a fact not a belief.


>Rhetorically "self-evident" refers to something, such as a moral precept,
>which we deeply believe to be fundamentally true or consistent with our
>humanity, for example the idea all human beings deserve equal and fair
>treatment under the law. I think that Schopenhauer was using this meaning.
>
>[..]

If you don't mind me saying it, that is nonsense. It has nothing to
do with self evidence.


>
>>>>>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.
>
>You have a wrong idea of what thet means.
>
>They are things that you believe to be true, i.e. they are consistent with
>your worldview. In the world of Quantum mechanics they not be true.
>

Much the same as the God example.


>>>>>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.
>
>Now you're talking in circles.
>

I don't think 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.
>
>It still does it.
>

No it doesn't. Using the God example. It is a belief that is not
self evident yet it has strong popular approval.

Are you saying that the existence of God is self evident?


>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>
>Self-evidence can either be argued to exist formally in which case we would
>be having a technical philosophical argument or it can be stated as a
>rhetorical phrase meaning that something is deeply believed to be true.

No. because as you have already said something that is self evident
does not need to be proved. You're confusing the differing opinions
of technicians to arrive at consensus, and the capacity to believe in
something, with something that is self evident.

>
>
>>>>>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.
>
>Perhaps, but it proves my point.
>
>
One can always be deceived.

>>>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.
>
>If you use the term rhetorically then almost anything can be called
>self-evident, if you use it formally then almost nothing can.


I don't believe so. See my answer above.


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.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dbrql211knf5jgtet3d3jbsast7ovc5gea@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:17:07 -0800, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
>><amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote
>>> Strong popularity does not mean something is self evident.
>>
>>That is in fact one meaning of the term.
>>
>>[..]
>
> If it is, it's wrong. There's strong popularity for belief that there
> is a God but it's not self evident that there is one.

To whom? To you?

>>>>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 :-)
>>
>>It doesn't matter if it was mistaken or not, it was self-evident.
>>
>>[..]
>>
> Not if they'd looked at the sea horizon.

Now you're saying that *they* the observers should examine the external
world. That would indicate *evidence*, not "self-evidence".

>
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>I can assure you that it is.
>>
>>[..]
>>
>
> No. It's a "fact" as you have already stated.

That is your belief.

>>>>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?
>>
>>Formally a self-evident belief is one that requires no outside evidence,
>>it
>>proves itself. I exist is the basic one.
>>
>
> It's a fact not a belief.

I'm not interested in 1+1=2, surely Schopenhauer isn't either. He's
referring to controversial *ideas* that find opposition and ridicule then
ultimately acceptance.

>>Rhetorically "self-evident" refers to something, such as a moral precept,
>>which we deeply believe to be fundamentally true or consistent with our
>>humanity, for example the idea all human beings deserve equal and fair
>>treatment under the law. I think that Schopenhauer was using this meaning.
>>
>>[..]
>
> If you don't mind me saying it, that is nonsense. It has nothing to
> do with self evidence.

"We find these truths to be self-evident.."

Why are you using the phrase in your signature? Which self-evident ideas are
you promoting or referring to? What makes it interesting to you?

>>>>>>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.
>>
>>You have a wrong idea of what thet means.
>>
>>They are things that you believe to be true, i.e. they are consistent with
>>your worldview. In the world of Quantum mechanics they not be true.
>>
>
> Much the same as the God example.

No, not like the God example at all. Quantum mechanics challenges our most
fundamental assumptions about the reality around us.

>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>Now you're talking in circles.
>>
>
> I don't think so.

You are. You are using a circular definition of self-evident.
>
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>It still does it.
>>
>
> No it doesn't. Using the God example. It is a belief that is not
> self evident yet it has strong popular approval.

God is self-evident to some people.

> Are you saying that the existence of God is self evident?

Yes, to true believers it is.

>>>>>>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.
>>
>>Self-evidence can either be argued to exist formally in which case we
>>would
>>be having a technical philosophical argument or it can be stated as a
>>rhetorical phrase meaning that something is deeply believed to be true.
>
> No. because as you have already said something that is self evident
> does not need to be proved. You're confusing the differing opinions
> of technicians to arrive at consensus, and the capacity to believe in
> something, with something that is self evident.


>
>>
>>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>Perhaps, but it proves my point.
>>
>>
> One can always be deceived.
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>If you use the term rhetorically then almost anything can be called
>>self-evident, if you use it formally then almost nothing can.
>
>
> I don't believe so. See my answer above.

?
>
>
> 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:12lqjdbj5neb2d@news.supernews.com...
>
> "BAC" <casswalk.RemoveThis@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1163674564.26011.1@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>
>> "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.
>
> Quite so, a classic example of playing on different colored squares.
>
>> 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.
>
> But that's not what the quotation he uses is saying, it is describing a
> process whereby all "truths" pass through a process of ridicule and
> rejection before finally being accepted (as "self-evident"). I am not yet
> convinced that Angus is taking a coherent position on the concept.
>
>> 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.
>
> Not quite, my comment was simply that the process of being subjected to
> ridicule and rejection which Schopenhauer attributes to ideas which we
> eventually come to see as "self-evident truth" also happens to bad or
> wrong ideas. In fact it happens to most new ideas. I say this in order to
> dispel any inclination to believe that the veracity of any particular idea
> is enhanced by being aware of this process. It's rather a catchy sounding
> rhetorical phrase with more fluff than substance.
>

And the relationship to the culling of tree rats is?
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 

"Alan Holmes" <alan.holmes DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote
> And the relationship to the culling of tree rats is?

Do you find anything about "the culling of tree rats" to be self-evident?
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels