Black Sheep are Sheep Too

Aginners who hold ridiculous beliefs that run counter to received wisdom often cite the fact that others agree with their opinion, claiming that those who concur with the fact-logic-based knowledge of experts are easily-fooled sheep. In other words, other black sheep agree with their anti-expert prejudices.

If one wishes to hold a correct position, one must practice critical thinking, which is not to say that one must be negative about any propositions originating with an expert.

"Critical thinking involves assessing the authenticity, accuracy, and/or worth of knowledge claims and arguments. This process requires careful, precise, persistent and objective analysis of any knowledge claim or belief to judge its validity and/or worth."

It is folly to make the automatic assumption that those who are experts in empirical fields are necessarily, or even likely to be, incorrect in their assertions. Value-based disciplines such as politics are obviously much more vulnerable to personal biases, so the opinions of experts in these fields may be more suspect. Nevertheless, few individuals have the time or luxury to assess all available information in a value-based area, and we must rely upon the expertise of those who have expended considerable time and thought.

The more education one receives, the more that one realizes how little one knows, and the more that one must rely upon received wisdom. Still, one must assess the level of expertise and level of bias of those who pass opinions. It is not wise to trust opinions posted on a website that has been set up for the express purpose of attacking the opinions or positions of experts. (It could be argued that, in our disgruntlement, we attack the opinions of hate-tankers, junk-tankers, and those who display cognitive disorders. However, our criticisms are directed at illogic and misinformation, certainly not at expertise.)

Credible experts possess the following attributes:
1. sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2. claims made are within area(s) of expertise.
3. adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
4. not significantly biased by subjective motivations or prejudices.
5. expertise within a legitimate area or discipline (related to the subject matter).
6. the authority must be identified.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Dei Non Existent

Considering that atheism is the most logical position based on empirical evidence, the fact that so many are so deluded as to insist on the existence of nonexistent deities indicates the psychological and social urges that impel the deluded to believe the unbelievable.

While it is impossible to disprove the existence of purportedly supernatural deities, there are many good reasons to be certain that no such deities exist.

Why, when we are embedded in and impacted by the physical world, should we believe that supernatural deities exist? And even if some deities did exist beyond the physical of what interest could they be to us? As soon as any influence impacts the physical, then that influence is no longer supernatural but has entered the realm of the natural, physical world. This means that the supernatural is, excuse the pun, immaterial to us.

Of course, the supposed supernatural offers appeals to the many timorous, credulous creatures amongst. The most attractive of these supernatural myths comprises unfounded claims of eternal life after death. There is absolutely no good evidence for any existence-after-death since our very consciousness is inextricably tied to the operations of a live brain. Descartes tried to prove otherwise and he failed.

One of the more stupid taunts of believers are that there are "no atheists in foxholes". This is utter nonsense particularly because the atheist has less to fear from death than does the gullible fool who fears that his sins will be punished in hell.

This raises another of the favorite taunts of believers, namely that atheists will get their just punishment for disbelief when they are sent, with all the taunters enemies, to suffer eternal damnation. This wishful "you'll be sorry" thinking of believers ranks along with their other illogical, unfounded beliefs. Such an argument, although it may satisfy the malevolence of the believer, is no good reason to take Pascal's Wager.

Logic

Logic can be symbolic or informal.

Symbolic logic examines the precise symbolic representation of logical concepts, the abstract relationships between these concepts, and the systematization of these relationships. Informal logic involves the application of logical principles to assessment the types of informal arguments and claims that we encounter in daily life.

Propositional logic is a branch of symbolic logic dealing with propositions as units and with their combinations and the connectives that relate them – if, then compound statements. Propositional Logic Terms and Symbols Proposition evaluator.

Categorical logic and categorical syllogisms are more concrete than is propositional logic – some, all, and/not. Venn diagram evaluator.

An understanding of Fallacies of Logic – recognized structural errors in argumentation – provides a shortcut to assessing the cogency of an argument. We most often encounter propositional arguments in daily life, while the logic of science, and of mathematics in particular, is more often categorical.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...