Every positive claim about causation is fallacious.

After talking with Derek and then reading his latest post, it dawned on me that, given that none of us have solved Hume's problem yet*, every time any scientist (or psychologist, or anyone) ever makes a positive claim about any X causing any Y, he commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (cf. Nizkor also).

When I spoke about this to Jon last night, he said, "Why not just say 'cf. Hume' and call it a day".

Good point, Jon; I could.

The thing is that there are tons of Naturalistic Atheists who cleave to Hume and yet go on to make positive claims about causation.

And then again even in a psychology class I took in college from a professor who was most certainly not a Naturalistic Atheist, he pressed the point home that correlation does not imply causation (he spoke about the correlation of popsicle consumption and drownings as an example), and then he went on to show the types of things that do imply causation.

But on what grounds? He and everyone else just beg the question and push each matter back a notch whenever they speak of some X causing some Y.

So instead of saying "cf. Hume", I am choosing to say "hey I realized that nobody has solved Hume yet (cf. Hume), and yet we brazenly make claims about causation, and this seems quirky.".

*For all inferences from experience suppose as their foundation that the future will resemble the past and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar qualities. If there is any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless and can give rise to no inference of conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future, since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed up to now ever so regular, that alone, without some new argument of inference, does not prove that for the future it will continue so. In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. Their secret nature and, consequently, all their effects and influence may change without any change in their sensible qualities. This happens sometimes and with regard to some objects. Why may it not happen always and with regard to all objects? What logic, what process of argument secures you against this supposition? My practice, you say, refutes my doubts. But you mistake the purport of my question. As an agent, I am quite satisfied in the point, but as a philosopher who has some share of curiosity--I will not say skepticism--I want to learn the foundation of this inference. No reading, no inquiry has yet been able to remove my difficulty or give me satisfaction in a matter of such importance.

- David Hume. An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section IV: Part II.

What is "Classical Theism"?

I couldn't find a good definition to link to, so I am issuing one henceforth:

Classical Theism: The belief in a single God who can do anything logically possible (omnipotence), knows every true proposition (omniscience), and always makes the maximally loving decisions possible (omnibenevolence). The classical theist's God created and designed everything that is physical (the universe), and more broadly speaking, everything that exists in some sense flows from this God and is dependent on this God. The classical theist's God exists by necessity (aseity), and does not depend on the universe for existence or happiness (transcendence), but chooses to interact with the universe (immanence). While the previous propositions entail the following, it is worth mentioning explicitly that the God posited by "Classical Theism" has definite attributes, including but not limited to emotion, intellect, & will, and is capable of decision-making (personality).

I avoided gender-specific terms in my definition of Classical Theism above. I also tried to keep it to the basics, but fear that even this definition is particular enough to exclude some I would consider Classical Theists (perhaps certain Muslim individuals or even whole sects of Islam or Judaism. Let it be known however, that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all considered Classical Theists. In fact, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are considered the three main Classical Theistic religions, although there existed Classical Theists before them [some classify Plato and Aristotle as Classical Theists, for example - or you might argue that Abraham was or became a Classical Theist during his lifetime. You can call him a Jew if you want; whatever].).

My main point here is only to communicate to those of you who don't know that "Classical Theism" is a philosophical and historical term that has a widely understood meaning in academia, entailing at least monotheism, and belief in the "three omni's", as well as transcendence and immanence, and usually a sort of Creationism and also usually a belief in a version of Divine Personality.

What is "Ontology"?

"Ontology" is the philosophical study of being. Ontology attempts to answer questions like the following:

Does X exist?
What does it mean for X to "exist"?
What is the being of X like?

There is a lot of rich discourse questioning whether one should include the nature of numbers or moral facts in one's "ontology". What else should be included in one's ontology, and how ontological inquiry should be gone about is also the topic of much debate.

ontology |änˈtäləjē|
noun
the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

DERIVATIVES
ontological |ˌäntəˈläjikəl| |ˈɑntəˈlɑdʒəkəl| |ˈɔntəˈlɑdʒəkəl| |-təˈlɒdʒɪk(ə)l| adjective
ontologically |ˌäntəˈläjik(ə)lē| |ˈɑntəˈlɑdʒək(ə)li| |ˈɔntəˈlɑdʒək(ə)li| |-təˈlɒdʒɪk(ə)li| adverb
ontologist |-jist| |ɑnˈtɑlədʒəst| |ɔnˈtɑlədʒəst| noun

ORIGIN early 18th cent.: from modern Latin ontologia, from Greek ōn, ont- ‘being’ + -logy .

-Oxford American Dictionary

Further reading:
Logic and Ontology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Ontology - Wikipedia

The Two Tiers and Two Domains of Philosophy

There are two tiers of philosophy, and two domains of philosophy. These lines of distinction cut across each other.

The first tier of philosophy is one that everyone should work hard to stay on: simple, clear thinking.

The second tier of philosophy is professional; some men choose to spend their lives dedicated to learning how to think, thinking, and teaching others how to think. Professional philosophy usually involves specialized jargon, to facilitate precision and speedy discussion.

The first domain of philosophy is “a priori”. This means of reasoning is built on pure thinking, without any observation. A priori arguments apply clear analysis to thoughts that can be found without inspection of the external world (for example, “2+2=4”, and “I exist”).

The second domain of philosophy is “a posteriori”. This means of reasoning is built on observation. A posteriori arguments apply clear analysis to data gathered by inspection of the external world (for example, “a man named Thomas existed in the first century and was convinced that he had seen Jesus alive, after Jesus had died”, and “at 5:07 PM, on August 26th, 2007, it was 71 degrees Fahrenheit inside Java on Sherman, in downtown Coeur d’Alene, Idaho”).

Mother Teresa's Legacy

So Mother Teresa's notes were published posthumously and against her will. It turns out that, like all of us, she had struggles and questions and doubts and fears.

How humanizing.

Did she lack faith? Don Johnson absolutely nails it:

Christian faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Heb. 11:1). At least two issues about this definition need to be addressed.

First, Christian faith is not an embrace of irrationality or lack of evidence. It is trusting, based on evidence already presented, that something will occur in the future (or has occurred in the past, in rare instances)...

Second, the mark of biblical faith is not one hundred percent emotional and intellectual certainty. It is obedience.

I esteem Teresa's legacy, and it gives me inspiration to think that despite a shortcoming of 100% emotional and intellectual certainty, she evaluated the evidence and then played her cards. That is precisely what Jesus calls for. That is faith.

Don's article is worth the read. So is the Time one I guess. Your choice.

w00t.

You are all you've got.

In a lesson on the psychology of chess competition found in Chessmaster 9000, Josh Waitzkin says:

You are all you've got in chess.

Sometimes it's tempting to overestimate your opponent and make a blunder out of fear. But you should simply ask yourself what your opponent's plan is, and whether it is a good one. You have to analyze the game with the processing skills that you've got within your own mind, and trust your own conclusions, because you are all you've got.

Outside the game, you can talk to others. But is it really any different? You still have to process what they say. You have to process their arguments. You have to weight their testimonies according to a heuristic of your own design.

You are all you've got in life, too.

When my little sister Laura was really young, she would hold up her left hand and, showing three fingers on her right, she would sweep down four of the fingers on her left hand, saying:

Five, take away three is... one!

Laura didn't understand how subtraction worked. When she first learned how to perform subtractive operations, it was only because she went through the steps and trusted that the conclusions were correct. It wasn't because she apprehended the concept with her mind.

Somebody sold her on the validity of a method of subtraction.

I experienced something similar as an adult. I had to do some calculus in a physical science lab. I was sold on the method. I performed the steps in the right order and confirmed the conclusion in the back of the book. And I trusted it. But I still don't fully grasp the genuine mathematical truths of each step. I don't really actually fully know why it is that such a list of steps produces the correct answer to a given problem.

I couldn't have invented calculus. I just trust that it is veridical if done properly.

I am sure Laura has since been able to fully grasp what is being represented when subtraction is performed. I am sure she now understands why 5 - 3 = 2 and not just that it is so.

But even still, hasn't she just been sold on the concept of subtraction?

Isn't it true that subtraction just somehow makes sense to her? She is capable of reason, but even reason is something she came to trust.

Think about it this way: there are some people who say that reason is their highest authority. Others disagree. But on what basis?

You are all you've got in life.

When evidence stacks up over your head on both sides of an argument, it's tempting to mistrust yourself, and make a blunder.

This makes me think. As the evidence in favor of a position builds, my certainty builds. But at what point should I start believing in something, if I cannot find a conclusive, sound, deductive argument for or against it? At what point do I reorient my life? At what point in the process do I start living as if it were true? It has to happen sometime. And it will happen when I feel satisfied that I have evaluated enough evidence.

Enough.

What determines that threshold?

Have you ever had somebody explain something to you and they got so upset because you didn't just understand it and believe it at the first go-around? They thought it was so obvious - it was like simple math!

But you weren't sold on it yet.

You had to first understand it, then meditate on it for a little while. And in merely understanding it and meditating on it, you saw its truth. The person was frustrated because there wasn't anything more simple they could say to convince you. The truth was self-evident. And yet you somehow didn't get it the first time.

Why did you get it the second time?

All any of us can do is estimate the best fit lines through the stars.

Does this mean one should throw out reason?

For me, quite the contrary.

4 Types of Logical Evidence

If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, it is evidence that Socrates is mortal.  This type of evidence is conclusive.  It is as airtight as accurate mathematical statements like 2 + 2 = 4.  If the premises are true, and the reasoning is "valid", then the argument is "sound". This is called deduction.

If all pictures observed hang on nails, it is evidence that all pictures hang on nails. This type of evidence is not conclusive like deduction is. It is called strong induction.

If I always hang pictures on nails, it is evidence that all pictures hang on nails. This type of evidence is weaker than strong induction, so it is called weak induction.

There is one other type of logical evidence, called abduction.  Abductive reasoning involves using your imagination to speculate about the likely cause of a phenomenon - inferring the best explanation.  The jury is still out regarding how abduction should be performed and how strong abductive evidence is.

ZERO

I am very certain of very little.  But I can't stop the progress of time, so I have no choice but to make decisions based on incomplete data sets.  I have to choose the best fit lines.  I have to look at what I have in front of me, and draw a constellation in the sky with my finger.  I have to ask myself "what picture makes the most sense out of these stars?"

I hope I have a good imagination.