All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 1, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
18:26
1426 TrollBait!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, it's Steph. Oh, it is the last day of the month.
And you won't get this in time, but donate anyway, please.
If you would be so very kind.
So, July 31st, 2009.
Out for Walkie Walks with Pinky Cutie.
You should see her in this hat.
She is 12 pounds of cute in a 4 pound bag.
So... I wanted...
Oh my goodness. Sorry, just looking at my lawn.
We had to have some of our lawn replaced, and that is going to be quite an exciting mowing job, let me tell you.
I haven't wanted to mow because grass is still coming in.
But now, I might well lose the mower.
I should probably go in with a flare gun.
So... The theist is back.
Theists occasionally swarm the board and come in and ask all the nonsense questions that theists are addicted to asking.
And I must say, and I'm not going to count myself entirely above this fray by any means, but I must say that it is...
A little embarrassing to see the degree to which rational people still swarm in to engage with the superstitious.
It really is.
Carlito's way, you know, just when you think you're out, they pull you back in!
It's a little embarrassing, if not very embarrassing, and kind of exasperating from the admin standpoint.
Right, so... A theist will come in and ask, oh, you know, how do you know what logic is and its relation to reality?
Don't you just have faith in logic and so on, right?
In other words, asking for a logical argument as to why logic is valid, but that begs the question, right?
That is, the proposition of the argument contains the argument, right?
And, of course, the purpose is to say, well, you assert logic the way that I assert God, which is complete nonsense, right?
Again, it's using logic to parallel, and it's just...
I just want to chip away at certainty, right?
Chip away at rational certainty, and so on.
And the question, I guess, arises, and I think that this sort of asks myself, why are people engaging with these people, right?
And we have the same thing with the determinists, and we have the same thing with the nihilists, that they just come in and...
People would just start engaging, ignoring the entire parameters of the discussion and not focusing on the implicit premises involved in the presentation of the question.
How do you know that logic is true?
Well, in other words, make a logical argument about why logic is valid.
Well... Compared to what?
Compared to a mere assertion, right?
Then it's a no-win game, right?
Because if you just merely assert it, then you have faith in logic the way that I have faith in God, and we're both the same, and stop being superior, and so on.
And if you start making a logical argument, then they'll say, well, you're presuming logic to make your argument, and you can't do that, right?
It's a silly game, right?
Because logic is not argued for, right?
Logic is derived from the consistent behavior of matter and energy.
Right? So logic is empirically derived from reality and applies to reality and denies the existence of gods and ghosts and gremlins.
And so it's a silly game, right?
Also, when somebody says, you know, how can you prove logic, they're putting together a syntactically correct, grammatically correct sentence with a logical sequence of words, right?
They're not typing foobar maybe, right?
They're putting together a logical series of words intended to establish a proposition.
And therefore, they're using logic to question logic.
They're using the logical sequence of words necessary to ask the question whether logic is valid.
Well, if logic isn't valid, why are you putting together a logical series of words?
Because you know that it's necessary in order to ask the question.
Right? And if the question is answered in the form of the question, then you don't need to go any further.
If you doubt logic, I would say, then rephrase that question without using logic, without requiring logic, without using any logical words, without using a logical series of grammatically correct characters.
I say, oh, well, by logic, I assume you mean watermelons.
Well, I know that watermelons are real because I eat them, right?
And the guy says, no, no, no, I don't mean if I'd have meant watermelons, I would have typed watermelons.
I meant logic. It's like, wait, are you saying that the word logic has a specific and defined meaning that is supposed to be objective?
Well, yes. So you're accepting it, right?
You're using logic. Anyway, you understand, right?
It's just a silly game.
Forget the content of what people are saying.
Forget the content of what people are saying.
Until later. Work on the form, work on the form, work on the form, work on the form.
The content is irrelevant in the initial phases of a discussion, particularly one around metaphysics or epistemology, but even ethics, right?
That's, I think, part of the Giant leap forward of UPB? And you say, well, forget the content.
Forget the lifeboat scenarios.
Forget the hanging from a flagpole crap.
Let's look at the form of the interaction and what premises are necessary for the interaction to occur.
Economics is first and foremost not about what people buy, but that people buy, because...
Because if people don't buy, if there's no price mechanism, if there's no supply and demand, there's no such thing as economics.
Economics is not about this guy bought sneakers rather than a can of paint.
That's not economics. That's not inconsequential, but it's very much after the fact.
That people buy and sell.
That desires are universal and resources are finite.
Sorry, that desires are infinite and resources are finite.
That is economics, right?
It's the form. It's the form.
It's the form. Forget the content.
It's the same thing with property rights, right?
Somebody's asserting self-ownership in order to make an argument.
They can't make an argument that denies self-ownership.
I mean, they can. They're just wrong.
Right? Right? It's like a horse that dies coming out of the gate and we all stand around it saying, get up, run, run!
No, no, he's dead.
Mr. Syllogism, he dead.
Forget the form, forget the content, forget the content.
Everybody wants to lure you into content and bypass the form of the argument.
Everybody wants to lure you into content so that you can start arguing about why logic is valid and ignore the fact that logic is required to even ask the question.
Because God is content that denies the form of the question or the comment.
Right?
God is a content argument.
God is not a form argument.
Logic is a form argument.
God is content because the content is always conclusion.
The content is always the conclusion.
The form is the methodology and everybody wants to get you to bypass the goddamn form and go straight to arguing the conclusion.
It's the fundamental trickery of bad faith debating.
Bypass the form, go straight to arguing content or conclusions.
Bypass methodology and focus on conclusions.
Bypass the conclusions that are inherent in the form of the question and go straight, overleap that completely and go straight to the conclusions.
And if you keep doing that, Then you will always end up in the situation of chasing your own tail, of running around, mucking about, looking at conclusions rather than the methodology inherent in the questions, in the propositions, in the very act of debating.
Do you understand?
This is so important. Repeat it 6,000 times to yourself.
Forget about the content.
Focus on the form.
Right? We don't judge the validity of science by whether a particular science experiment, a scientific experiment, turns out to be true or false.
Valid or invalid, reproducible or non-reproducible.
We don't judge the efficacy of mathematics by whether somebody says 2 plus 2 is 5.
Do you understand? If somebody makes an error...
That, in fact, reinforces the methodology.
Because otherwise, we would not know that there was an error, right?
People can't say, well, mathematics is invalid because somebody says that 2 plus 2 is 5.
They say, well, why is that? Because 2 plus 2 is 5 is wrong.
How do you know that? Mathematics, right?
Circular, circular, circular. You can't escape that.
But everybody and their holy dog will forever try and get you charging into arguing the conclusions rather than the methodology.
And they will want you to bypass the contradictions in the proposition.
Right? They will be desperate for you to do that.
And why? Because they are desperate to pretend that their initial Proposition is not contradictory.
They will want to slither and skip over that, right?
It's sort of like this.
The guy who's passing counterfeit money will be very eager to get you into haggling about price.
Because if he can get you to haggle about price, then you have automatically accepted the validity of his currency.
I mean, he would rather have you not argue about price but but if he can get you to argue about price then your attention is focused on how much money he should pay not on whether his currency is any good to begin with right and they'll try and rush you past that right here's the money let's get into haggling right as opposed to what a rational person should do in my opinion is somebody hands you some currency immediately check it for counterfeit Particularly if they say,
I'm a counterfeiter. In other words, I'm a theist.
I am a theist. Here is my money.
Well, I am a counterfeiter.
Here is my money. Let's haggle. Oh, let's get into haggling.
It should be less. It should be more. It should be this.
It should be that. It's like, no, no, no.
I already said they were counterfeit. Maybe focus on that a little bit.
And don't bother. Don't waste your time negotiating with people who've started off in bad faith.
But I repeat myself. Right, and that's the absolutely essential thing to focus on.
And so what it's like to me, at least what it looks like to me, and again, I'm not saying I'm all above this fray or whatever, right?
I'm tempted, I understand, but I resist the temptation.
Heroin looks fun too, but yet I resist.
It looks to me like this, that we have a forum for advanced physics, right?
The exploration and dissemination and discussion of advanced physics.
And, unfortunately, what happens is, every now and then, someone comes in and starts talking about tarot cards.
Sweetums! And, of course, the person who comes in and starts talking about tarot cards is desperate, desperate, I tell you, for the scientist to begin to debate those claims with seriousness,
right? Somebody comes in and starts talking about astrology in a physics forum, and they are absolutely desperate for the physicists to debate On their terms.
And if the scientists engage in the debate with the person trumpeting the virtues and values of Astrology and Wiccan practices and crop circles and so on,
then the scientists are only showing insecurity in the validity of the scientific method.
Right? Because fools and manipulators are desperate To engage with rational people.
Because then they can pretend to themselves that they're rational.
That it's a debate.
Right? That there's yay and nay and stuff in between.
That there's evidence for both sides.
And then they can, of course, pretend to themselves that atheists who are dogmatic Atheists who are certain are dogmatic, and they're just as fundamentalist as the Christian fundamentalists or the Islamic fundamentalists, right?
And then they just get to drape a gooey, comfortable, icky, sickly kind of fog over the clarity of the whole question.
And say, well, we'll agree to disagree, live and let live, and anyone who's a strong atheist is merely dogmatic.
And that comes because...
Rational, empirical, intelligent, scientifically-minded people engage with the superstitious.
As if the superstitious are not rankly self-contradicting themselves in the very first time they open their mouth.
Right? Some guy posted it on the board, some theist.
I'm not certain that I exist.
Using the word I twice to deny the possibility or the certainty of I. Right?
So, if you don't point that out, or you don't just say, don't just say, well, this guy doesn't get it.
He's not even close to getting it.
It's the opposite of getting it.
It's running in the complete wrong direction from getting it at high tilt boogie and is trying to drag me with him.
Right? Right? If you're running out of a burning building, someone else is running in a burning building, do you say, well, let's compromise and we'll both stay where we are?
No. It's a game, right?
It's a con. It's a con.
It's a game. And it's kind of embarrassing to see people fall for this over and over and over again.
It's just luring you in to waste your time and to bolster the superstitious, stupid claims of people who believe in Invisible Sky Daddies.
What does a science forum do?
When somebody into past lives, regression, whatever, begins to post, we just ignore them.
Don't engage. Don't engage.
Don't engage. Don't engage.
Don't engage. Somebody posts something as rankly self-contradictory as, I'm not certain that I exist.
They use their own hands to type it.
They use the word I twice and then claim not to be certain of their own existence.
I mean, just pass by, right?
They're telling you everything you need to know.
It's an embarrassment to engage.
I'd say it's beneath you to engage.
It's foolish. It's a waste of time.
It's a waste of other people's time and it's granting a degree of rationality to people who aren't rational.
Who are specifically anti-rational the very first time they open their mouth.
So please, please, focus.
On the form, not the content.
Focus on the form, not the content.
Don't waste your time with the superstitious.
We have much, much better things to do, much more important things to do.
And the degree to which we all do that is the degree to which we can trust that we don't need to engage because we're afraid other people might.
So I hope that helps. Thank you so much for listening.
I look forward to chatting with you every Sunday, 4 p.m.
▲
Export Selection