I would have to disagree with (6) for 2 reasons;

1) It is false presumption that people derive the most happiness from social service.

2) It promotes slavery.

I agree with the others 1-5.

What is missing, I believe, is anything to truly address the real problem at hand. The problem is and has always been, a smaller group trying to tell the vast majority what is true and what isn't.

Regardless of how correct any group might be, when they impose their beliefs upon others, the real problem gains impetus for reaction.

The solution MUST concern itself with how to get people to see what that expert group sees as being correct. Every decietful trick in the world is merely waiting to be used by any small group trying to imposed its wisdom on all other people.

If such a method for distributing accurate knowledge is not found, deception is the final result to the extent of utter elimination of the small group.

IMHO

[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 10:41]

[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 11:05]

It is my belief that it has only been irrational thinking that has held Science back. Scientists often make irrational persumptions. But Science advocates "demonstration" (evidence). The problem is that logicians are seld used to verify the thining involved. What is supposedly seen and witnessed by the scientists is often mere presumption that a logician would have caught.

All perception requires a degree of presumption. Only the use of logic and rationale can circumvent misperception from corrupting the witness's thoughts of what he sees.

Thanks

[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 11:12]

The proposed method was to promote in others what constitutes logical fallacy. I agree with the concept of allowing and promoting education of logic. In fact, I am an avide subscriber to any such effort.

But when a promotion takes on other groups in mass, the warriors for the cause are inevidably far less precise or intelligent than those who determined what is or isn't logical.

What confines logic? If for example, there were 1000 "logicians" supporting the cause of this agenda, how would anyone know if they were being honest or just pushing their political agenda by deceptive means? I don't ask that as a challenge against using logic, but rather as a warning of ensuring that the corruption of logicians doesn't become the greater problem.

Scientists must go by specific procedures so as to be "real scientists". But even with that, a great deal of corruption sets in once politics gets involved.

Logic has something that confines it beyond any attempt to corrupt it, but is that going to be supported as well? Is that to be taught as well? If not, then the logicians will become no more than the priests of the new religion making up what they find convenient to use for political gain.

Where is the authority to be? How is the authority to be kept uncorrupt?

There are 2 primary concerns for any long standing organisation;

1) internal corruption
2) external interference

If those 2 concerns are not covered, the entity WILL fall.

How does this forum group propose to even address those questions or any involving the structure of the congregation?

Again, I am not asking these to be disinspiring, but to ask the right questions early so that the future can be more assured.

Thanks

[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 13:41]

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:44

Then if I read you correctly we are in agreement. However I'm not sure I've read you correctly. Just to make sure can I ask you if you think it is OK for the the Congregation of Reality to demonstrate that a biased sample will not necessarily arrive at the truth or that a half truth does not necessarily imply a full truth.

Demonstrate when asked or have it available to be seen are "OK" with me. Going out to hammer the errors of others, is not. Please understand that what is done here, is a different priority than what is to be done to others in the effort of promotion. I suggest letting the war come to you rather than taking it to them. But that measn that we must do something here that is attractive - make progress.

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:44

Are you also saying that we should avoid saying "Gordon Brown's latest declaration on Israel is fallacious" Or are you saying that a preferable alternative would be "Gordon Brown's latest declaration on Israel is fallacious..." and then revealing the specifics of how we reached that conclusion whilst hoping to expose the faulty logic"

The promotion of the use of logic within our own ranks, must be done through the practice of it. So I would recommend the latter. People today focus far too much on trying to claim something as either a truth or a fallacy. They do not practice the method for ensuring their accuracy and seldom care of it. Their concern is to support their cause, even if a little irrationality happens to sneak into their words.

I would suggest a strong effort to avoid the "win at all cost" attitude. Don't be affraid to be wrong for the right reasons, else Reality will never be found.

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:44

Or are you saying that if we were to use logic as a weapon to dissect political statement it would be tempting to use it selectively against those who oppose our agenda and that this wold be a corruption of our otherwise pure motives.

The selectivity of a defense is entirely an issue of circumstance

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:44

If you are referring to any of these examples of specifics I have to say that this was not what I was referring to. However I'm not ruling out the possibility that the Congregation will have commentary to make on the issues of the day.

Commentary within this forum should be, IMHO, an issue of practicing logical and rational thinking, not attempting to expose "truth". Truth gets slwoly exposed as thinking becomes the practice. As to what subject can be covered, I see no need to limit the scope as long as logical and rational thinking is the practice in discussing them. The temptation is to attempt to point out the "bad guy" over there. But as long as you are not a part of the solution, then you are the bad guy, but over here.

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:44

Exactly, by virtue of us publicising logical fallacies, they would be more likely to spot the deception and would be less likely to simply accept the conclusion based upon an appeal to authority.

What I think would be best is to publicse, "This is what WE do and why" along with a damn good reason why they should care.

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:44

Logicians may become corrupt but logic cannot. What I propose would give greater access to the underlying logic thus bypassing the possibly corrupt logician.

What happens in reality is that a label is assigned to a type of fallacy. The young warrior misunderstands the meaning of the label or what it is really referring to. He then shouts "Fallacy of ____" when in fact, there was no fallacy at all or his label was not the right one to use. This is very, very common. The solder uses his BWBS (Baffle with Bullshit) shotgun as though it were an instrument of logic and in the name of logic.

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:44

Siau wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 13:37 Scientists must go by specific procedures so as to be "real scientists". But even with that, a great deal of corruption sets in once politics gets involved. Logic has something that confines it beyond any attempt to corrupt it, but is that going to be supported as well? Is that to be taught as well? If not, then the logicians will become no more than the priests of the new religion making up what they find convenient to use for political gain. Only if they are allowed to simply dictate their results without giving access to the method by which they were reached.

Exactly my point. The real reasoning of the fallacy pointed out MUST be accessable and debatable to the opponent, else the labels for what a particular fallacy really is, gets confused and used by some implied higher education, when in reality, it is just a disguise for political subdrufuge.

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:44

Siau wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 13:37 Where is the authority to be? How is the authority to be kept uncorrupt? In this case the authority is with the individual. The idea behind publicising the list of common logical fallacies is to empower the individual against those who would seek to pull the wool over their eyes. I hope that also satisfies you as to the second question.

In that, I was really thinking in terms of a distant governed group. How is this group to be governed? How, in the long run, will issues be addressed? It is easy and simple as long as there are only a few members. The 2 concrns for longevity were about that also (Im probably still thinking in terms of a long standing church).

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 14:44

All the usual stuff and as usual "the devil is in the detail"

Exactly, exactly, and exactly.

[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 15:19]

Number Two wrote on Tue, 10 July 2007 15:33

We aim to offer a framework within which our secular belief can be afforded the same legal privilege as traditional religions based on blind faith.

Got my vote with one exception perhaps. In the above, aren't we starting with a conclusion? The congregation isn't about Secularism, but about seeking Reality. What would happen if in the seeking, we were to logically determine that one of the religions happened to have been right (or some other new one)?

It would be more genuine and honest if the wording was about the search for Reality, or for rational governance, without any mention of forebias.

"It is not our way or goal to deceive our memberships or others by our efforts to govern our beliefs rationaly" .. or something like that perhaps.

IMHO

[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 15:48]

Anything any group believes in by faith is a religion whether it is named as such or not.

Secularism as a governing method can only be by faith. It is the faith in having a small group decide by a particular means what is real and dictate that to the masses.

The difference is only in which method is used to determine "truth". The religions have prayer, testimony, and prophets. Everything else is the same.

It is only by faith, that one can accept that secularism is the better way to rule. I am not saying that faith is incorrect. I am only saying that it is an unproven faith as much as all the others.

I think it is a mistake in the long run to include it as any part of the foundation here. It would be the same as the presumption of the founding forefathers of the US constitution that "We trust in God". They presumed that of course any idiot would believe in God.

Why do you put your faith in Secularism? Is it due to some scientific proof? But even if it were, you would be placing faith in Science.

The pursuit here is REALITY, not any sacred cow.

But I don't see it being a problem immediately if you just can't resist.

[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 16:32]

[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 17:14]

You have mentioned a variety of issues. Some in the beginning are only due to the poor logical construct of many common words.

But all-n-all, I think I see your point.

You are interested in gathering the non-traditional-religious into a politically significant group that could then be represented in political decision making.

I see that as a very different agenda than the name of the CoR and the Congregation of Realists would imply. But I have yet to find a group that holds true to its name.

I tend to emphasize reasoning, rationality, logic, and accuracy as the concern in a pursuit for Reality. The very concept of religion or non-religion doesn't even come into the picture. I shoot for simply pulling the plug on the entire game by doing the job slated for religions and governments better than they ever have.

Although I can't respect the direction you propose quite as much, I can certainly see how a great many more people would enjoy participating in it. Very many today have been inspired to hate religion and enjoy bashing it at every opportunity.

I haven't put much thought into the best way to rally the current crowd into a fun group of political warriors, so I'm probably not the one to make suggestions in that direction, but rather merely to help point out whatever logic or lack thereof might be being used.

The core beliefs and proposed methods are sound for an altruistic group. Politics will require that they be broken pretty shortly, but that wouldn't be any different than all other political groups. Politics requires deception to the maximum degree safely obtainable.

So I think I would have to back off and just input a thought now and then and stay out of the effort to gain political pull by such means.

I might think of a way to create a win-win situation between the 2 agendas, but I will have to think on it for a while. Open and honest documenting isn't the way to lung toward a political victory. It will provide a means to ensure victory in a slower more complex and structured manner, but that isn't what you are after.

The simple truth from what I know and can see, is that you don't really have to do anything to help Secularism gain the victory cup. I know who is behind it and there is no doubt of a victory regardless of anything you do.

But where is the fun in that?

[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 18:09]

[Updated on: Wed, 11 July 2007 02:45]

[Updated on: Wed, 11 July 2007 14:49]

In this case, this "Beast" spoken of in the Bible is a metaphor representing an organisation led by an idea that stands on both the firmness of logical thought as well as the irrationalities of broken minds. - The "Yin-Yang" - Chaos and Order.

[Updated on: Fri, 27 July 2007 15:23]

[Updated on: Wed, 09 September 2009 14:39] by Moderator

[Updated on: Wed, 09 September 2009 15:55]