June 18th, 2009
• "City: Workers Must Wear Underwear"--headline, WKMG-TV Web site (Orlando, Fla.), June 18
• "Man Steals $1,000 Worth of Underwear From Clothesline"--headline, FoxNews.com, June 18
Hey, Wait a Minute....
• "9,200 Uncounted Vials Found at Army Biodefense Lab"--headline, Associated Press, June 17
James Chastek over at Just Thomism had an interesting post today about the futility of demanding proof of everything. thomism.wordpress.com/
[They say everything must be demonstrated] because of apaedeusiam, i.e. lack of proper education or lack of sound learning. For it is a lack of proper education tht makes a man not know what things he must seek a demonstration of, and what things not, for all things cannot be demonstrated. For if all things might be demonstrated, then, since the same thing is not demonstrated by itself, but by another, there would be a circle in the demonstration. This cannot be, because then the same thing would be more and less known, as is clear in the first book of the Posterior Analytics. Or else, if the demonstration proceeded infinitely, there would not be a demonstration, because the conclusion of any demonstration traces its certitude by reduction to the first principles of demonstration, which would not exist if the demonstration proceeded upwards to infinity.
Sententia libri Metaphysicae, lib. 4 l. 6 n. 12
(BTW, it is good to see i.e. in its original incarnation as id est [idest].)
Chastek makes the same point.
( Chastek continuesCollapse )
Which explains much of the post-modern dilemma. Notice how people, in order to question something simple and obvious, often bring up things that are flimsy and insubstantial -- like "potential persons" or "multiple universes" or [somehow] "emergent property" hand-waving. Hume, because he did not like the way arguments from causation ended up, decided to deny causation entirely.