Not every ad hominem is a logical fallacy, nor is it necessarily a personal attack. In this instance, what the defender of the PSR proposes is that the skeptic's own presuppositions entail adherence to the PSR. Have you ever been involved in a discussion like this?:
Proponent: God exists because X, Y, and Z.
Opponent: Why should I believe Z?
Proponent: Because Z is based on the PSR.
Opponent: Why should I believe in the PSR?
Notice how bizarre that last question sounds if you step back for a moment to think about it. If it's not the case that every existing thing has an explanation of its existence (PSR), then why should the proponent of the PSR be required to give a reason in defense of the PSR? If there are so many exceptions to the PSR, then it seems arbitrary for the opponent to demand an explanation in this case but not in others.
It seems to me that the PSR is a first principle of rational inquiry, much like the assumption that an external world exists. Without such principles, all rational inquiry ceases. Moreover, if we assume that the PSR is false, that gives rise to all kinds of paradoxes and absurdities. The proponent of the PSR should also not overlook the strength of arguing from intuition. How many of us, Richard Taylor points out, upon walking by a glowing translucent ball in the middle of the forest, would conclude that the ball had no explanation whatsoever? My guess is that even the diehard skeptic would not hesitate to conclude that it has an explanation, whatever that explanation might be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How many of us, Richard Taylor points out, upon walking by a glowing translucent ball in the middle of the forest, would conclude that the ball had no explanation whatsoever? My guess is that even the diehard skeptic would not hesitate to conclude that it has an explanation, whatever that explanation might be.
ReplyDeleteMan, you and I walk in some different circles then.
I've lost count of the number of skeptics who have asserted not only the possibility that some things can happen utterly without cause, but think this has been witnessed in the laboratory by scientists.
I'd agree that to assert such a thing is madness, a sacrifice of reason. The problem is I think far more people are sacrificing reason than you may assume.
I do hear quite often that quantum physics has produced counter-examples to the PSR. However, I've never met a skeptic who would undermine the PSR in any area of his/her life other than in the context of theological debate.
ReplyDeleteOf course, even quantum physics isn't really an exception to the PSR, properly applied. Even assuming that quantum fluctuation occur spontaneously, that doesn't mean they exist without any explanation whatsoever, much less come from nothing.
However, I've never met a skeptic who would undermine the PSR in any area of his/her life other than in the context of theological debate.
ReplyDeleteOh, I agree. This reminds me of VanInwagen's talk about the application of Clifford's Principle, and how it seems to only show up in one particular kind of discussion.
I suppose I'm just being skeptical about skeptics. Note that this doesn't distract from your point at all, not even about ad hominem arguments for the PSR. Just relating my own experiences on that front.
Of course, even quantum physics isn't really an exception to the PSR, properly applied. Even assuming that quantum fluctuation occur spontaneously, that doesn't mean they exist without any explanation whatsoever, much less come from nothing.
I agree again. I think the very claim of 'we have witnessed something coming from nothing with neither cause nor explanation, right in a laboratory!' is, at the very least, a sign of not thinking something through. (If someone wants to argue such a thing happening without cause is possible, that's crazy enough. But if someone wants to argue *this thing, in all the pertinent ways, has been witnessed*? It's hard to think of what to say about that.)
I wonder if anyone has ever argued that quantum physics provides any amount of evidence, even on PSR terms, that God is sustaining and perhaps even intervening in all physical processes at each and every moment? I recall one philosopher suggesting as much in the past, but it doesn't seem to be very prominently suggested. (I suppose one could argue it would be a God of the Gaps argument, but then again look what's filling that gap otherwise.)
Touching on the matter of Crude's first comment: Science!' and Miracles ... and Skepticism!
ReplyDelete