Two Questions for Tarski

[Bill Hamblin]

On another thread I have been trying for a couple of days to get Tarski to answer two questions. He has so far consistently refused to do so, instead engaging in a long series of dodges and distractions ending in a morass of confusion and obfuscation. Just to clarify matters, I'm putting the questions here.

1. Tarski repeatedly criticized Kerry for being an autodidact. I asked:

My point is a simple one. Since you are admittedly an autodidact on history, religion, philosophy and language, then will you please stop criticizing Mormons who are autodidacts. It is both irrelevant and ad hominem. ... If we are going to get into a pissing contest about who has the best credentials, then we need also to evaluate those of the anti-Mormons, right?

Like most anti-Mormons here, Tarski is, in fact, an admitted autodidact in religion and history. Either Tarski should shut up on matters on which he is an autodidact, or he should stop criticizing Mormon autodidacts and instead focus on the evidence and analysis. Which is it going to be, Tarski? Should we summarily dismiss your pronouncements on religion and history because you are admittedly unqualified to speak on such matters with critical acumen?

2. Tarski said:

QUOTE(Tarski @ Mar 22 2009, 04:13 PM)

Let me ask this: Why is it that when someone such as Kerry puts themself forward as a polymath, it just so happens that when they talk about something that I do actually know about, it becomes painfully apparent that the they do not know what they are talking about?

Should I assume a giant coincidence or might it be that those in other fields would notice the same thing should they take a look?

To which I responded:

When you make statements on topics where it "becomes painfully apparent that [you] do not know what [you're] are talking about" I should assume that you don't what you're talking about on every subject, right? With this logic, the fact that you don't know much about history or religion means you don't know anything about mathematics, too, right?

I've asked him repeatedly to explain what he means. Instead I get more distraction and dodging.

To me Tarski's position is simply idiotic. No one, not even Tarski, knows everything about everything. (And the situation is getting worse and worse. Knowledge is expanding exponentially in all fields. It is simply impossible for one person in one life time to learn everything that can be known even in a single field of knowledge.) So, the fact that a person may be mistaken about topic X provides absolutely no evidence that he is unknowledgeable about topic Y. Tarski's position is absurd, and if he is going to apply it to Kerry, he should allow us to apply it to him as well.

Tarski can he can answer these or not, but I'm done wasting my time with him.

[sethpayne]

Tarski can he can answer these or not, but I'm done wasting my time with him.

So why did you bother to write this post?

[Tarski]

On another thread I have been trying for a couple of days to get Tarski to answer two questions. He has so far consistently refused to do so, instead engaging in a long series of dodges and distractions ending in a morass of confusion and obfuscation. Just to clarify matters, I'm putting the questions here.

1. Tarski repeatedly criticized Kerry for being an autodidact. I asked:

Like most anti-Mormons here, Tarski is, in fact, an admitted autodidact in religion and history. Either Tarski should shut up on matters on which he is an autodidact, or he should stop criticizing Mormon autodidacts and instead focus on the evidence and analysis. Which is it going to be, Tarski? Should we summarily dismiss your pronouncements on religion and history because you are admittedly unqualified to speak on such matters with critical acumen?

2. Tarski said:

QUOTE(Tarski @ Mar 22 2009, 04:13 PM)

To which I responded:

I've asked him repeatedly to explain what he means. Instead I get more distraction and dodging.

To me Tarski's position is simply idiotic. No one, not even Tarski, knows everything about everything. (And the situation is getting worse and worse. Knowledge is expanding exponentially in all fields. It is simply impossible for one person in one life time to learn everything that can be known even in a single field of knowledge.) So, the fact that a person may be mistaken about topic X provides absolutely no evidence that he is unknowledgeable about topic Y. Tarski's position is absurd, and if he is going to apply it to Kerry, he should allow us to apply it to him as well.

Tarski can he can answer these or not, but I'm done wasting my time with him.

When you say I criticized Kerry for being self-taught, you are wrong. I did no such thing.

If it can be shown that I am willing to take on an excathedral attitude with things which I know little about in one area that I am not trained in, then it should indeed be suspected that I may be wrong about other things in which I am not trained.

The premise of the question is that my approach to pontification compares to Kerry's.

Perhaps I was unkind or my comments ill considered--at least partially. How long can we wait to hear similar concesions from you?

But, when you say I criticized Kerry for being self taught, you are wrong. I did no such thing.

But, as I made clear in another thread, I do feel a need to change gears.

[Tarski]

....and, as for the answering of any and all questions until the other party is satisfied, can I expect you to do this regarding my questions concering

"Cosmology and Atheism

By Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin"

[Bill Hamblin]

But, when you say I criticized Kerry for being self taught, you are wrong. I did no such thing.

Here is your statement:

So, why don't we get to arguing about something we both know about--quantum field theory . Like Nibley who taught himself Egyptology, you have taught yourself quantum physics--right?

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208619572

If it can be shown that I am willing to take on an excathedral attitude with things which I know little about in one area that I am not trained in, then it should indeed be suspected that I may be wrong about other things in which I am not trained.

Great. Then we can dismiss your musings on history and religion. Which is precisely what I will do.

....and, as for the answering of any and all questions until the other party is satisfied, can I expect you to do this regarding my questions concering "Cosmology and AtheismBy Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin"

Red Herring Alert! I didn't insist you "answer of any and all questions until the other party is satisfied." I do insist, however, that if you make a foolish claim you should be required to either support it or withdraw it. I am questioning you on issues YOU raised.

[Bill Hamblin]

If it can be shown that I am willing to take on an excathedral attitude with things which I know little about in one area that I am not trained in, then it should indeed be suspected that I may be wrong about other things in which I am not trained.

Are you willing to apply this criteria equally to anti-Mormon authors who are not trained in history and religion? (Which includes just about all anti-Mormons by the way.)

Personally I think your position is abysmally foolish. I think I'll call it the "Tarski Principle."

But, be that as it may, your perceptions of someone's supposed ex cathedra (not excathedral = a building that used to be a cathedral) "attitudes" has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of an argument that person is presenting. Evidence and analysis are the only relevant issues.

So why did you bother to write this post?

Because arrogance annoys me.

[Tarski]

Because arrogance annoys me.

Ironic. It must be very hard living with yourself.

You are a word twister. I never criticised Kerry for being an autodidact. The quote you put up does not say that at all and this is typical of you. You see what you want to see instead of what is there.

Two can play, here is what I said

"So, why don't we get to arguing about something we both know about--quantum field theory . Like Nibley who taught himself Egyptology, you have taught yourself quantum physics--right?"

Where exactly is there a criticism of the notion of self teaching or a discouragement from being an autodidact? There may be an implied (and mere) "doubt" that he really is not up to speed on QM meaning that the self-teaching has not reached a level of proficiency, but the notion of self-teaching is not challenged as such. You are seeing things and that has often been the problem.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If nothing else comes of this thread I learned that I am an autodidact.

Sweet. I learned it myself too.