Up@dawn 2.0

Sunday, April 1, 2012

On a priori justifications....

Just came across this blog post, addressing the lame assertion that since we cannot justify the various methods of scientific inquiry or naturalism by a priori logic, they are no more valid than methods of religious inquiry. I have always felt that this line of reasoning (how do you justify the use of reason in this case?!?) is a last ditch effort to salvage some shred of respectability for religion/spirituality/faith/etc. Needless to say, I think it is without merit in any practical sense.

Feel free to chime in with thoughts or disagreement:

1 comment:

  1. Skepticism about the very foundations of rationality is a dishonest method of muddying the waters that the British philosopher Stephen Law calls “going nuclear”, since it makes all argument useless. All positions become equally unjustifiable. He writes, “Indeed, those who employ this [argument] are usually quite content to rely on reason to make their case just so long as they are not losing the argument. It’s only when the tide of rationality turns against them that they reach for the nuclear button… Going nuclear is, in truth, almost always a ploy. Those who use it don’t usually believe what they’re saying about reason. They say it only to raise enough dust and confusion to make quick their escape.”

    (Quotes from Believing Bullshit – an outstanding little book for dismantling anti-reason arguments.)