Saturday, February 6, 2010

How to tell if premises are true or plausibly true?

Can you give examples. Thanks so much.How to tell if premises are true or plausibly true?
If the premises are supported by evidence. Also be sure you are not equivocating words or applying something true for a part that may not be true for the whole. Basically to the degree something is extraordinary is the degree that something needs to be backed by solid evidence.





For example.





1. Everything that begins has a cause


2. The universe has a beginning


3. Therefore the universe has a cause





The first premise is only true within the universe as we know it and needs justification to be applied to the whole universe.


The universe having a beginning needs clarification since we don't know if there are other universe or what it means by ';began.'; Because the first moment of time could be the beginning but it couldn't have a sequential before if we were are to avoid an infinite regress. Therefore the syllogism is not sound unless more support is given for these premises. Furthermore, even if I'm wrong and other criticism are wrong about the argument; at best some first cause you might call ';God'; exists, but it proves nothing of who or what he is or if he/it cares about anyone.How to tell if premises are true or plausibly true?
Archbishop Daniel M. Buechlein, O.S.B., D.D., Archbishop of Indianapolis, in a speech called,


Doctrinal Deficiencies Caused by Desire Not to Offend, Judge or Exclude,


spoke about our postmodern culture鈥檚 desire to not offend anyone or exclude anyone.





The motive of plausibility, the motive not to offend or exclude is good and important in itself, but not at the expense of important truth. Authentic inculturation of truth cannot be achieved with plausibility as the presumed first principle.


He said that this motivation to not offend has caused serious deficiencies on catechesis, preaching, and liturgy. Indeed how can we expect our young people especially, but also the adults, to know their faith, to believe what the Church believes, to understand proper liturgy if we avoid the truth out of a misplaced sense of ';niceness';, or ';plausibility'; as the Archbishop calls it.





The Archbishop defines ';plausibility';, as reported by the Criterian (the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis), ';as something deserving applause or popular approval. For example, a plausible argument is one that is pleasing or acceptable to those who hear it, but it is not necessarily a rational argument or one that is consistent with the truth.';





This is remarkably similar to the definition of ';nice';. ';Nice';, we remember, came to mean ';agreeably delightful'; 鈥擯lausibility is ';pleasing'; and ';acceptable';.





The Archbishop is saying that truth cannot be sacrificed for ';niceness'; (plausibility):





I am convinced, the Archbishop said, that the doctrinal incompleteness is due to the prevailing cultural principle of the primacy of plausibility.


Christ calls us to truth, even when it hurts. Certainly Christ calls us to gentleness, and civility, but never at the expense of truth. Even when tough love has to be applied to those inscrutable souls who refuse to obey God through His Church, we so clearly learn from St Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, that these measures of ';tough love'; are designed to make it clear to the sinner the seriousness of his actions. The sinner needs to know the risk he takes with his soul. The ';tough love'; is exercised always in hope that the sinner will return to the faith and once again partake in full fellowship and communion with Christ鈥檚 Church.





We do no favors to wayward souls by enabling their errors with our false civility any more than we do a favor to a child who deserves an ';F'; on a term paper, but receives an ';A'; for fear we might hurt his feelings.





As Archbishop Buechlein states:





Surely we agree that evangelizing catechesis or preaching and also worship and prayer cannot succumb to the weight of plausibility (that is, public approval) over doctrine and theology in the practice and life of the Church.


Yet we do precisely that, allow our lives and our Church to become even slaves to a worldview of plausibility (niceness) that asserts all opinions are equal and we are never to judge even when it might lead a soul to hell.





We must proclaim the Fullness of the Truth. To do that we need to understand the three secret strategies of Satan proposed in this essay. With that understanding we can then discern when we have crossed the line into, or have been contaminated by, these demonic notions. With that understanding we can guard ourselves from the error of the primacy of plausibility. Then we are able to ';teach and live the Divine Truth.';





';We must do so, as the Archbishop concludes, ';with the greatest fidelity and yet do so in such a way that speaks to the minds and hearts of the human family in our times. The primacy of plausibility [and this writer would add, with its desire to respect opinions and never to judge even at the expense of truth] must be overshadowed by our deep commitment to proclaim the fullness of truth in season and out of season.
Here are two methods - you must determine which is best. Most people use one or the other.





1. True premises are supported by evidence; false ones are not.





2. Whatever your parents believe is true.
Use your mouth, tongue and language.

No comments:

Post a Comment