Monday, July 14, 2014

The Carbon Tax is not a Tax



This blog is about faith in certain religious facts.  But the sacred is of course, not the only area where faith is necessary.  We are required to have faith in our car mechanic, our doctor and of course our governments. 
I have chosen a small issue to illustrate how mistakes and lies run our lives.  For those of us who cannot believe God, I say there are many other areas where faith is not well rewarded.
The toxic tax is not a tax
There is a whopper of a mistake that has bought down two Prime Ministers, changed a government and transfixed Australia for several years now – the alleged Carbon Tax.  The Carbon Tax, however, is not a tax.  On this error, Australian governments have been made or broken.  A former Prime Minister has been inaccurately portrayed as a liar.  And this week this blunder has consumed our political life.
The regulation of carbon emissions depends on two things: the price of emissions (P) and the quantity (Q) of emissions.  Since the dawn of human history, carbon could be emitted for free (P=0) and so Q was high.  As with most things, there is an inverse relationship between P and Q.  The lower the P is the more Q there is demanded.  Thus, we can regulate carbon by attacking either P or Q.  One could tax emissions which would cause the P to rise and then cause the Q of carbon to decline.  Or one could control the Q of carbon emissions which would lead the P to rise.  Limiting Q is what an emissions trading scheme (ETS) does and is not a tax.  An ETS limits the quantity and says nothing explicit about the price. 
The difference between attacking the P (tax) and Q (ETS) is both real and political.  The real difference is to do with certainty and flexibility.  An ETS gives a government certainty on the emissions heading into the atmosphere.  Q is set by the government through the carbon pollution cap.  This is set by the government and so the government has certainty on Q.  The corporations don’t get certainty but they do get flexibility to trade for more units.   A tax reverses these attributes.  Corporations get certainty from a tax for they can know how much they will have to pay whereas the government does not get certainty for it is always unclear how much corporations will lower their Q as a result of a higher P.  But the most important difference between a tax and an ETS is political.  The “T word” produces an odium in Western democracies that has profound, even toxic, political implications.
The Australian scheme introduced in the Clean Energy Act 2011 is not a tax.  In its essence it regulates Q not P.  For example the biggest taxpayer, the electricity generator GDF Suez, lodged carbon units with the quantity of 25.8 million carbon units in 2012-13.  It is all about Q (James Bond would be rapt).
For the first years, the cost of exceeding the allocated quantity by the 500 regulated corporations is fixed and this makes the scheme look a little tax like.  But in its essence the Clean Energy Act is an ETS for it restricts Q and for a short time fixes the cost of exceeding the carbon units allotted by the scheme.  (An addition myopically insisted on by the Greens)  It is not a tax because of its Q oriented essence even if the price of exceeding Q is fixed for a short time.  It is not even correct to call it a short term tax/ETS hybrid.  It is driven by carbon Q and therefore is not a tax on P.
So when Clive Palmer and others say that they want to scrap the tax and look at an ETS they are talking nonsense.  We have an ETS already.
Political discourse inevitably is conducted with many bungles informing debate.  The world is complex and mistakes are common.  The mislabeling of the Clean Energy Act as a tax is a howler.  On this misunderstanding has swung the fate of a few governments.  We need to understand once and for all that this tax is not a tax.
And what do we learn about the theory of knowledge (epistemology)?  I think we learn that flawed knowledge flowers when knowledge is difficult or hard to obtain.  We don’t know about being dead so there is much faith in all sorts of weird but consoling ideas.  The economics of a difficult subject like the pricing of carbon is inaccessible and so complete crap dominates debate.
What is your view?
Do you agree that faith flowers when the facts are hard to get?
Is faith in the political debate as irrational as belief in God?
Do you agree that we have a carbon trading scheme already or am I wrong or just pedantic?
Over to you guys…


51 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:02 PM

    Hi Dick,

    Been awhile, thought I'd check in on you and couldn't help but comment.

    Funny thing is, I was watching an interview with Anthony Albanese on the weekend. In response to a question of why the Opposition wasn't supporting the legislation to repeal the carbon tax (when they promised to get rid of it) he made the distinction between scrapping the 'tax' and replacing it with an 'ETS'.

    The problem you describe appears endemic across the entire political spectrum.

    Why is this?

    Perhaps because the pollies are more attuned to the the public, who don't care about what you call something if it hurts their hip pocket. Joe Hockey learnt this from the recent federal budget. People didn't care if they called it a 'debt 'levy' - it cost them money so it promptly got the label of 'debt tax'.

    Similarly, consumers don't care if you call it a 'carbon tax' or an 'ETS'. The end result is they have received letters of one sort or another from their utilities company telling them that a direct result of the 'carbon tax' or 'ETS' their power bills are going up - therefore its perceived as a tax.

    Just my two cents worth.

    BigMac

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Big Mac, welcome back. The problem of miss description is due to the complexity. Once then label tax had become,popular, it was too difficult to turn around the Titanic. Dick

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS2:33 AM

      Both Rudd AND Ju-liar promised to get rid of the tax. Now Shorten, after supporting both of them, promises to reintroduce it. All politicians lie.

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS2:38 AM

      Oops! You removed it!

      Delete
    3. Misplaced apostrophe, see below.

      We all expect to be lied to during election campaigns, but it was the scale of the deception, in this case, that leaves them with no credibility whatsoever.
      Then for them to pull the tired old stunt of grossly over-exaggerating the country's debt situation, when we still have a AAA credit rating, shows that they think we are all complete fools.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS7:34 PM

      The Rudd debt was available for all to see and was not "over-exaggerated." The point is that the debt was unnecessary. There was virtually no GFC effects here and megalomaniac Rudd/Ju-liar simply trashed an economy which was perfectly healthy. Like all centrally planned economies its "insulation batts" crank scheme [and others] paved the way for incompetent, fly-by-night, shonky tradesmen with all the fires and loss of life that had to result. All with no benefit to "climate" whatsoever. The effect is that we are not in any position to deal with the real economic crash which is immanent. Rudd and the serial gangster's moll got off lightly by losing the election - they should be in prison.

      Delete
    5. The Australian nation is little more than 200 years old and as such obviously requires borrowed money to fund its development.
      It would be irresponsible in the extreme to ignore this reality simply to serve selfish temporary political point scoring.
      The only reason there was a surplus after the last LNP government was because they let our infrastructure go to the dogs.
      Any government can achieve a surplus if they choose to neglect their fundamental responsibilities.

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS10:05 PM

      "The Australian nation is little more than 200 years old and as such obviously requires borrowed money to fund its development"

      Obvious to whom? Borrowed from whom? Your children's and grand-children's future?

      The development of this country has progressed by *private* development. When the government gets involved it all turns to shit. "Development" depends on freedom - not Government fiat.

      Delete
    7. "When the government gets involved it all turns to shit. "Development" depends on freedom - not Government fiat."

      Are you including AWH and all the other former Government utilities, that have been sold off, when you talk about freedom?

      Delete
    8. MalcolmS11:51 PM

      I am saying that the only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the armed forces, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

      So called "public utilities" are not a legitimate function of government. No idea what AWH is.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. "No idea what AWH is."

      I am not surprised, it barely made the press.
      Google could only find 30,600 results.

      https://www.google.com.au/search?q=awh&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=TMTIU--ECqKN8Qeww4GIAQ#channel=sb&q=awh+%2B+icac&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official

      Still think that Government can be reduced to the simplistic level you outlined?

      Delete
    11. MalcolmS1:22 AM

      You didn't read a word of what I said did you? In a free society, government is not responsible for water supply, so no such corruption would occur. You collect your own water or employ a private water company to provide it for a price. Such corruption is caused by the fact that government has a monopoly on water supply and, therefore, officials can be bribed by relevant parties. Nobody can properly be forced to provide you with water. The world does not owe you a living. Your example simply serves as evidence for what happens when governments and bureaucrats run what private individuals should run. Same with any other "public utility."

      Delete
    12. Your crazy naive social model would dispense with all the trial & error experience hard won by civilisation over the past several millennia.
      The natural order should be left to its own devices?
      You must be pretty confident you would succeed under such conditions?
      Good luck with that.

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS10:00 AM

      In fact such a "social model" was what the American founding fathers envisaged when establishing history's first free country.

      Delete
    14. tossrag:

      blah blah wank wank ... the only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. wank wank

      followed by

      blah blah wank wank .. government has a monopoly on water supply and, therefore, officials can be bribed by relevant parties. wank wank...

      So gummint is somehow immune from bribery in case one yet entirely susceptible to it in case two?

      You're so dumb it's funny
      Go on - Soak it up.

      Delete
    15. MalcolmS6:55 PM

      magicsausagetosser: "So gummint[sic] is somehow immune from bribery in case one yet entirely susceptible to it in case two?"

      Correct! Congratulations! You got another one right!

      Is someone coaching you dopey? :)

      Delete
  3. Today has been a great day for the LNP.
    They finally managed to keep a pre-election promise.
    Whether or not the taxpayer actually sees the alleged savings is another matter.

    As for faith & facts, who would be silly enough to have faith that they will keep some of their other promises.

    Who could forget -

    "No cuts to education, no cuts to health…"

    “...no cuts to the ABC or SBS.”

    "No changes to pensions."

    Good ol' faith!

    ReplyDelete
  4. True Sharky but this is the one promise that should have been broken. The tax was not a tax and was being successful. D

    ReplyDelete
  5. MalcolmS9:21 AM

    "The Carbon Tax is not a Tax"

    That's a crap article Dick.

    1. A government mandated "charge" is a tax. Period! I don't give a stuff if you call it a ferret it's still a tax.

    2. An "emissions trading scheme (ETS)" is not, and has nothing to do with, a "trade." That's simply more of your obfuscation which an intelligent child wouldn't fall for. A trader deals with another by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange - an exchange which mutually benefits both parties in accordance with their own free independent judgment. Calling an ETS a *trade* is an attempt to disguise thuggery. An exchange of values with a government gun at your head is not a trade. It's even worse when the so-called "trade" involves nothing of value [emissions]. It becomes even more preposterous when the effect on climate is squat!!

    3. Nowhere in your article do you mention "carbon dioxide" - the alleged demon of alleged cataclysmic global warming. Why not? Because even the massive increase in anthropogenic CO2 with the industrialisation of China and India has made no significant difference to the climate. I learned in early high school science [1950s] that atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 0.04%. Surprise, surprise it has barely changed. At that level it has no significant greenhouse effect at all especially when compared to H2O [otherwise known as clouds!]

    Carbon dioxide is a natural, colourless, odourless, invisible, rare gas which is essential for all plant life. It is NOT a "pollutant." Any increase in CO2 would simply result in an increase in plant life especially in the oceans and could only be beneficial. That was exactly what occurred during the Earth's volcanic past and the evolution of life forms.

    4. Carbon[not carbon dioxide] is a solid in all its forms whether ash, soot, graphite or diamond. Ash or soot can be a pollutant in its air-borne particulate form but it is not a "greenhouse gas." Particulate carbon can be removed from industrial emissions quite simply where appropriate. Coal burning was banned from private heating in London in the 50s because such particles caused respiratory problems and there were cleaner alternatives. At no stage did coal burning cause "cataclysmic global warming." The proper treatment of a harmful pollutant is to ban it! *Not* to "trade" it!!

    5. Cataclysmic anthropogenic global warming is the greatest conspiracy theory since Jesus and Christianity. It is nothing more than the last desperate attempt to fund the Wests collapsing and bankrupt "welfare" states where taxation and money printing has proven inadequate. Man made emissions have had no effect on climate whatsoever - and nor will taxing emissions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS9:25 AM

      My Country by Dorothea Mackellar

      The love of field and coppice,
      Of green and shaded lanes.
      Of ordered woods and gardens
      Is running in your veins,
      Strong love of grey-blue distance
      Brown streams and soft dim skies
      I know but cannot share it,
      My love is otherwise.

      I love a sunburnt country,
      A land of sweeping plains,
      Of ragged mountain ranges,
      Of droughts and flooding rains.
      I love her far horizons,
      I love her jewel-sea,
      Her beauty and her terror -
      The wide brown land for me!

      A stark white ring-barked forest
      All tragic to the moon,
      The sapphire-misted mountains,
      The hot gold hush of noon.
      Green tangle of the brushes,
      Where lithe lianas coil,
      And orchids deck the tree-tops
      And ferns the warm dark soil.

      Core of my heart, my country!
      Her pitiless blue sky,
      When sick at heart, around us,
      We see the cattle die -
      But then the grey clouds gather,
      And we can bless again
      The drumming of an army,
      The steady, soaking rain.

      Core of my heart, my country!
      Land of the Rainbow Gold,
      For flood and fire and famine,
      She pays us back threefold -
      Over the thirsty paddocks,
      Watch, after many days,
      The filmy veil of greenness
      That thickens as we gaze.

      An opal-hearted country,
      A wilful, lavish land -
      All you who have not loved her,
      You will not understand -
      Though earth holds many splendours,
      Wherever I may die,
      I know to what brown country
      My homing thoughts will fly.


      Written in 1904 - climate-wise nothing has changed!!

      Delete
    2. C'mon tossrag

      Quit your whining and get on board the gravy train

      Just think:
      If they ever introduced a brain fart trading regime you'd be the richest bubblehead in the country!

      Delete
    3. tossrag

      " The proper treatment of a harmful pollutant is to ban it!

      Didn't take you long to blow out an additional "proper purpose" for the gummint did it bubblehead?

      Go the brain fart ETS!! She's a winner!!

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS7:48 PM

      magicsausagetosser: ""The proper treatment of a harmful pollutant is to ban it!" Didn't take you long to blow out an additional "proper purpose" for the gummint[sic]"

      "Additional"?? No, it's the same principle - the principle of individual rights. The production by one[or many] citizen/s of harmful substances is the *initiation* of force to others. Protection of citizens from the initiation of force is the legitimate function of government - armed forces, police and law courts.

      Not too good on thinking in principles hey Pussy?!

      Delete
    5. the legitimate function of government

      And who ensures the government performs it's "legitimate function" and only it's "legitimate function"

      Legislators?
      Pixies?
      Oooh ooh ... I know ... Crackhead Russian cult founders!!

      lol
      You're an idiot

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS2:20 AM

      magicsausagetosser: "And[sic] who ensures the government performs it's "legitimate function" and only it's "legitimate function""

      A proper constitution.

      Not surprised you didn't know that pussy :)

      Delete
    7. A proper constitution.

      lol @ soaky

      Is that a written constitution or are you going to get your buddy Rolf Harris to paint one?

      Delete
    8. MalcolmS9:18 PM

      Tie your own kangaroo down pussy :)

      Delete
    9. Thought not.

      Continue soaking in it tossrag

      Delete
  6. DG:
    We are required to have faith in our car mechanic, our doctor and of course our governments.

    Required?
    By whom?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with the "climate debate" is that it's a battle of the furphies. IMO climate science is circa 50 years away from producing any consistently accurate predictions.

      The drivers behind the ahem "debate" currently are simply opportunism and fear. Its that simple.

      The shameful part about the addleheaded cuture wars that surround climate at present is that they have the very real potential to kill climate science dead in the water before it has an opportunity to produce any reliable accurate useful short or long term models of the climate system.

      Still. Too bad. Nobody promised us a rose garden.

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS8:07 PM

      magicsausagetosser: ""DG: We are required to have faith in our car mechanic, our doctor and of course our governments" Required? By whom?"

      LOL LOL Spot on!!

      Is someone coaching you dopey? :)

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS8:21 PM

      magicsausagetosser: "The problem with the "climate debate" is that it's a battle of the furphies. IMO climate science is circa 50 years away from producing any consistently accurate predictions"

      Sheesh, you're hitting home runs today Pussy. Now you've blown away the "consensus." :)

      Actually science as such could not survive the rise of scepticism in the philosophy of science and has been on the skids for generations. So-called *climate science* is only the latest disaster. Big bang, multiverse, string theory and modern subatomic physics are other such disasters. Galileo and Newton would laugh them all out of church and with good reason.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS2:22 AM

      magicsausagetosser: "blah blah wank wank You're an idiot"

      Yeah, but you're the wanker :)

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS9:14 PM

      LOL Repetitive strain injury?

      Coach resign pussy??

      Delete
    6. Soggy tossrag syndrome.

      Best I let r-elf-ie wring you out for a while

      ta ta

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS11:09 AM

      He'd go closer than you ever will pussy :)

      Delete
  7. bigbird1:15 AM

    Just thought I'd check in to see how GG is going. Good to see there's still a few familiar monikers around.

    I will attempt to drop in a bit more regularly, although it may be at odd times as I've recently moved to the UK - bigbird.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:53 PM

    Dick,

    A couple of weeks ago I ducked in to read your blog for the first time in awhile and made a post.

    Today, I've ducked back in to see if there's any response (thank you for yours) and see how the debate is going. Unfortunately, there remains alot of personal attacks and very little debate which has reminded me of why I was experiencing dissatisfaction with the blog prior to its move from the SMH.

    I enjoy debate - not personal attacks, and those contained in here are quite terrible. Looking back at previous blog topics this seems to have been the trend for awhile.

    My personal opinion - you need to ban 'The Disembodied Soul of Billy the Magic Cat'. He / She rarely offers any views or explains any rationale that would contribute to a solid discussion or debate and only joins the blog to personally insult others.

    I appreciate the effort you make to keep a blog running but it appears to only provide opportunity for bad behaviour. I may check in again but can't see myself contributing while this behaviour is evident.

    I wish you all the best.

    BigMac

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Anonymous Lady / Man.

      So let me get this straight.

      Someone who has never actually joined the debate refuses to join the debate unless the disembodied soul who does actually join the debate, is no longer permitted to accurately point out the flaws in the character of the (and lets be frank) inverted marxist foolosophy of nobjectivism (and one specific nobjectivist) accurately?



      Hmmm...






      ...Are you Malcolms mum?

      Delete
  9. RalphH 29/075:53 PM

    The Carbon Tax is not a Tax

    This blog is about faith in certain religious facts. But the sacred is of course, not the only area where faith is necessary. We are required to have faith in our car mechanic, our doctor and of course our governments.
    I have chosen a small issue to illustrate how mistakes and lies run our lives. For those of us who cannot believe God, I say there are many other areas where faith is not well rewarded. (MONDAY, JULY 14, 2014)

    Hi Dick, I’ve been taking a break and catching up on a bit of (armchair) sport. Politics is not one of my major interests but faith is. I completely agree that faith is not confined to religion as many mistakenly believe. To have faith is to trust or to have confidence in something (including someone). We’d be in real trouble if we couldn’t trust/have faith in our car mechanic or our doctor.

    Without trust/faith in others the whole fabric of society breaks down and we are left to our own (in many areas) ignorant devices and are not able to take advantage of and share the unique skills of others. Faith is a universal attribute of humanity - every balanced human being has faith in something even if it’s only in themselves. Faith (real faith) works in concert with reason - reason without faith is worthless and so is faith without reason.

    Faith without reason/understanding is blind faith (which exists in secular as well as religious areas). Religious faith is based on a belief in God. Because ‘God is Spirit’ and hence cannot be physically sensated many believe that all religious faith is blind faith.

    This idea is based on the assumption that the essence and basis of reality is physical but reason can see beyond this fallacious appearance. Although they are integrated and act holistically, the mind/spirit is obviously on a ‘higher’ level than the physical. Brain trumps brawn every time because the relationship is like that of master and servant.

    “for those who cannot believe in God” I suggest that everyone can “believe in God” but some choose not to. I believe this is because (as said above) they assume and consider the essence and basis of reality to be physical/on the level of the senses. The concept of God that they reject is therefore a fallacious one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS8:40 PM

      RalphH: "I completely agree that faith is not confined to religion as many mistakenly believe"

      That has been my argument since I first started blogging on religious/atheist sites. I have stated on many occasions that most modern atheists, following the scepticism of Hume, go by faith. Once you are reduced to the epistemological status of chronic doubt and the uncertainty of all knowledge you must necessarily go by faith since you have presumed the inadequacy of reason. Hume's argument for atheism consists of nothing more than the premise that since *all* knowledge is impossible so, too, is knowledge of God.

      In fact the proper argument for atheism is nothing more than Aristotle's *onus of proof* principle which places the burden of proof where it belongs - on he who asserts the positive - the theist. It places the onus of proof back on reason. It is a challenge which the "faithful," including Ralph, cannot meet.

      So you see, Ralph and Dick, you have always had this unholy dalliance. Thanks for finally performing the bridal waltz for all to see.

      Delete
    2. RalphH 30/075:10 PM

      “That has been my argument since I first started blogging on religious/atheist sites. I have stated on many occasions that most modern atheists, following the scepticism of Hume, go by faith. Once you are reduced to the epistemological status of chronic doubt and the uncertainty of all knowledge you must necessarily go by faith since you have presumed the inadequacy of reason. Hume's argument for atheism consists of nothing more than the premise that since *all* knowledge is impossible so, too, is knowledge of God.” (MalcolmS8:40 PM)

      Malcolm, our arguments are very different. You’re saying that knowledge is degraded and adulterated by faith. I’m saying that, even though reason may be the main driver, it’s impossible to have knowledge without faith. Scepticism results from a lack of faith not the other way round. Hume’s argument, as you have presented it, is an argument for agnosticism, not atheism.

      “In fact the proper argument for atheism is nothing more than Aristotle's *onus of proof* principle which places the burden of proof where it belongs - on he who asserts the positive - the theist. It places the onus of proof back on reason. It is a challenge which the "faithful," including Ralph, cannot meet.”

      I think that “*onus of proof*” used in a philosophical argument is a nonsense. Onus/burden of proof is a legal term that has to do with establishing the guilt or innocence of an alleged perpetrator.

      “So you see, Ralph and Dick, you have always had this unholy dalliance. Thanks for finally performing the bridal waltz for all to see.”

      Two people using their common sense does not equal an “unholy dalliance”. If you see having faith or trust or confidence as “unholy”, what do you consider ‘holy’?

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS9:49 PM

      RalphH: "Malcolm, our arguments are very different. You’re saying that knowledge is degraded and adulterated by faith"

      I am NOT saying that knowledge is *degraded and adulterated* by faith. I am saying that faith is not a means to knowledge. Period!

      "I’m saying that, even though reason may be the main driver, it’s impossible to have knowledge without faith"

      I'm saying that man obtains knowledge only by means of what nature has bequeathed him: his faculty of reason. This is his main distinguishing feature from all other conscious animals. All other conscious beings have an *automatic* form of knowledge: for example, the rabbit knows automatically that the fox should be avoided at all costs [whether you call it instinct, feeling or faith]. Man's reason is volitional and not automatic.

      "Scepticism results from a lack of faith not the other way round"

      Scepticism is the conclusion that knowledge and certainty are impossible by *any* means.

      "Hume’s argument, as you have presented it, is an argument for agnosticism, not atheism"

      I accept that distinction. However, both sceptical atheism and agnosticism have the same conclusion. That knowledge and certainty are impossible.

      "“In fact the proper argument for atheism is nothing more than Aristotle's *onus of proof* principle which places the burden of proof where it belongs - on he who asserts the positive - the theist. It places the onus of proof back on reason. It is a challenge which the "faithful," including Ralph, cannot meet.”[MS] I think that “*onus of proof*” used in a philosophical argument is a nonsense. Onus/burden of proof is a legal term that has to do with establishing the guilt or innocence of an alleged perpetrator[RH]"

      That "answer" is only evidence of your childish naivity in philosophy. The *onus of proof* principle is one of the many laws of logic discovered by Aristotle and is deeply philosophic. Logic, and all her rules, constitute epistemological *method*: the method by which reason *must* function if knowledge is to result. Reason does not function automatically like the consciousness of animals but volitionally and by certain rules: those rules are called logic. Your rejection of the onus of proof is your rejection of logic and of reason - your *wish* to have your "God" as an arbitrary assertion devoid of all evidence and proof.

      “Two people using their common sense does not equal an “unholy dalliance”

      It does when the two are a mystic and a sceptic :)

      "If you see having faith or trust or confidence as “unholy”, what do you consider ‘holy’?"

      I have no objection to trust or confidence - if based in reason.

      Delete

  10. I'm saying that man obtains knowledge only by means of what nature has bequeathed him: his faculty of reason.


    Nature "bequeaths" stuff yeah? To Bequeath something requires intent. So nature has intent now? Reason fail.
    Obviously Nature decided to bequeath you idiocy instead ;)


    That "answer" is only evidence of your childish naivity in philosophy. The *onus of proof* principle is one of the many laws of logic discovered by Aristotle and is deeply philosophic.


    That "answer" is only evidence of your childish naivity in philosophy. The *onus of proof* principle is one of the many laws of logic defined by Aristotle and his peers, and is deeply philosophic.

    Fixed it for ya


    Logic, and all her rules, constitute epistemological *method*:


    Logic is a chick now?
    Is she hot? Or is she your mother the "Lady / Man" who commented above?


    Scepticism is the conclusion that knowledge and certainty are impossible by *any* means.


    All straw ... No one believes that. I should know, I was talking to no one yesterday


    Reason does not function automatically like the consciousness of animals


    lol ...
    Go on... auto up another magicsausagetosser comment for us "reason boy"....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Malcolms[sic] mum11:39 AM

      magicsausagetosser: "The *onus of proof* principle is one of the many laws of logic defined by Aristotle and his peers, and is deeply philosophic. Fixed it for ya[sic]"

      Handy hint for the dull and the ignorant: before you can "define" a law you must first *discover* it!

      Now, run along you naughty, little grub :)

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS9:41 PM

      magicsausagetosser: " ... No one believes that. I should know, I was talking to no one yesterday"

      You believe that.

      Yesterday you were talking to yourself.

      Today you're still no one :)

      Delete

Followers