# Have there been any autistic savants of philosophy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2007, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579 "2007-02-17T01:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/41 "2011-01-02T21:35:35Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So? Are you kidding? There is no point in philosophers forming an argument if there is no thesis that they are working toward. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Incorrect. A chain of reasoning can be – or fail to be – internally consistent regardless of whether the conclusion is disprovable. Of course it can be. But this is irrelevant if the chain of reasoning has no bearing upon the proposition for which it was introduced. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That thesis is, of course, incorrect. Is this some kind of argument? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/42 "2011-01-02T21:46:27Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Are you kidding? There is no point in philosophers forming an argument if there is no thesis that they are working toward. They are working toward a thesis; it’s just a thesis we can’t disprove without disproving the reasoning, is all. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Incorrect. A chain of reasoning can be – or fail to be – internally consistent regardless of whether the conclusion is disprovable. > > Of course it can be. But this is irrelevant if the chain of reasoning has no bearing upon the proposition for which it was introduced. Fortunately, the chain of reasoning in this case _ **does** _ have a bearing on that proposition. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > If the reasoning cannot be proven right or wrong, then the reasoning is subjective in nature, which has been my thesis all along. > > > > That thesis is, of course, incorrect. > > Is this some kind of argument? Yes. The reasoning in a philosophical argument can – objectively – be shown to be in error, at which point the reasoning _ **can** _ be proven wrong. Thus your thesis is incorrect: if a philosopher offers up, say, a piece of reasoning that isn’t internally consistent – well, then, we can prove that he’s as incorrect as your thesis. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/43 "2011-01-02T21:54:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > They are working toward a thesis; it’s just a thesis we can’t disprove without disproving the reasoning, is all. If it is a thesis that _cannot be proven_, there is _no point_ in trying to prove it. In this case _of course_ the philosopher can advance a straw man argument and show it to be fallacious. But that is completely irrelevant. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Fortunately, the chain of reasoning in this case _ **does** _ have a bearing on that proposition. No it doesn’t. If a proposition is _unprovable_, then _ **by definition** _ any chain of reasoning can have no bearing on it. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Yes. The reasoning in a philosophical argument can – objectively – be shown to be in error, at which point the reasoning _ **can** _ be proven wrong. Again, straw men can be knocked down. Of course. That is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/44 "2011-01-02T22:09:14Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Fortunately, the chain of reasoning in this case does have a bearing on that proposition. > > No it doesn’t. If a proposition is unprovable, then by definition any chain of reasoning can have no bearing on it. I’m telling you the proposition _ **can,** _ in fact, be disproven – by disproving the chain of reasoning leading up to it. Such a chain of reasoning therefore _ **would** _ have a bearing on it, since disproving it disproves the conclusion. Again, compare it to the hypothetical math savant who proposes the hitherto-unknown Pythagorean theorem without producing a chain of reasoning: if her proposition were incorrect, then we could disprove that claim by simply producing a right triangle where the sum of the squares of the other sides _ **don’t** _ equal the sum of the hypotenuse; we don’t need a chain of reasoning that bears on it, we can just slay the beautiful proposition with an ugly fact. In philosophy, we _ **lack** _ a way to disprove a proposition without disproving the chain of reasoning – which means (a) the chain-of-reasoning stuff _ **is** _ the philosophy, since (b) a “savant” who merely offers up a non-disprovable proposition _ **without** _ supplying a disprovable chain of reasoning isn’t really producing anything of value: we can’t apply it to, or slay it with, facts. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/45 "2011-01-02T22:26:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m telling you the proposition _ **can,** _ in fact, be disproven – by disproving the chain of reasoning leading up to it. Such a chain of reasoning therefore _ **would** _ have a bearing on it, since disproving it disproves the conclusion. Disproving the chain of reasoning DOES NOT DISPROVE THE CONCLUSION. This is absolutely elementary. Here is a very simple example to help you grapple with this apparently difficult concept: Proposition: 2+2=4 Reasoning: I like unicorns The reasoning is faulty, but the conclusion is not disproved. Here is another simple example. This time I will give an example illustrating how reasoning has no bearing on an unprovable proposition: Proposition: The moon is made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties Reasoning: Anything No reasoning can prove or disprove the proposition. It is an unprovable and unfalsifiable assertion. It doesn’t matter whether the reasoning associated with it is faulty or not. That is irrelevant, because the truth value of the proposition is _fundamentally undecidable_. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/46 "2011-01-02T22:43:49Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Disproving the chain of reasoning DOES NOT DISPROVE THE CONCLUSION. This is absolutely elementary. > > Here is a very simple example to help you grapple with this apparently difficult concept: > > Proposition: 2+2=4 > Reasoning: I like unicorns > > The reasoning is faulty, but the conclusion is not disproved. Nor would a 2+2=5 proposition be disproved were the same reasoning used to establish it – or that 2+2=-57, or whatever; if the _ **only** _ reasoning ever advanced to establish that 2+2=4 were a liking for unicorns, then 2+2=4 would be as unsupported as any other conclusion. The only reason the 2+2=4 proposition is so useful in these sorts of illustrations is _ **because** _ it can be backed up in another way – which helps show that it can remain standing even if a different piece of reasoning were cut out from under it. If you produce a proposition that _ **can’t** _ be backed up or cut down in some other way, then the reasoning is all you’ve got – and the proposition stands or falls with it. > [@](#): > > Proposition: The moon is made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties > Reasoning: Anything > > No reasoning can prove or disprove the proposition. It is an unprovable and unfalsifiable assertion. It doesn’t matter whether the reasoning associated with it is faulty or not. That is irrelevant, because the truth value of the proposition is _fundamentally undecidable_. Again, if you’d genuinely like to advance exactly that _fundamentally undecidable_ proposition, then the only discussion would necessarily center on whatever arbitrary reasoning you’d then offer up to backstop it – and if the _ **only** _ thing backing you up is demonstrably bad reasoning, then we’d be left with a proposition that isn’t really of any value: one we can’t apply to, or slay with, facts. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/47 "2011-01-02T23:20:42Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Nor would a 2+2=5 proposition be disproved were the same reasoning used to establish it – or that 2+2=-57, or whatever; if the _ **only** _ reasoning ever advanced to establish that 2+2=4 were a liking for unicorns, then 2+2=4 would be as unsupported as any other conclusion. Yes… but completely irrelevant to my point that disproving the chain of reasoning does not disprove the conclusion. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > If you produce a proposition that _ **can’t** _ be backed up or cut down in some other way, then the reasoning is all you’ve got – and the proposition stands or falls with it. This statement is not self-consistent. If the proposition cannot be proven, then the reasoning is irrelevant. You somehow keep evading this basic fact. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Again, if you’d genuinely like to advance exactly that _fundamentally undecidable_ proposition Do you or do you not agree that the example I gave was: 1. philosophy (if not, please tell me what it is) and 2. subjective in nature > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > then the only discussion would necessarily center on whatever arbitrary reasoning you’d then offer up to backstop it – and if the _ **only** _ thing backing you up is demonstrably bad reasoning, then we’d be left with a proposition that isn’t really of any value: one we can’t apply to, or slay with, facts. It wouldn’t matter whether the reasoning was bad or good. The proposition, as you admitted, is UNDECIDABLE. Do you understand what that means? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/48 "2011-01-03T00:30:57Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Nor would a 2+2=5 proposition be disproved were the same reasoning used to establish it – or that 2+2=-57, or whatever; if the only reasoning ever advanced to establish that 2+2=4 were a liking for unicorns, then 2+2=4 would be as unsupported as any other conclusion. > > Yes… but completely irrelevant to my point that disproving the chain of reasoning does not disprove the conclusion. The point _ **is** _ that one’s liking for unicorns is irrelevant to whether 2+2=4. To link the reasoning to the proposition, you’d need to posit (in a glossed-over final step) the relevance of liking unicorns; if the reasoning _ **did** _ have the requisite bearing on the proposition, then attacking the reasoning _ **would** _ attack the proposition. As it happens, the reasoning in question lacks any such relationship to the proposition – and pointing that out is likewise addressing a flaw in the reasoning. Which is to say, the “unicorn” chain of reasoning has nothing to do with the “2+2=4” conclusion (or the “2+2=5” conclusion). In itself, there’s nothing faulty about it; possibly you _ **do** _ like unicorns. The flaw only comes in during the step you didn’t really make explicit: the part where you claim that liking unicorns has some bearing on what two plus two equals. If it did, then disproving it would disprove the conclusion. It doesn’t, which – disproves a different, but related, conclusion. > [@](#): > > Do you or do you not agree that the example I gave was: > > 1. philosophy (if not, please tell me what it is) > and > 2. subjective in nature The moon-is-cheese proposition? As far as I can tell, it was neither philosophy nor subjective; it strikes me as an objective claim about a purely physical phenomenon. > [@](#): > > It wouldn’t matter whether the reasoning was bad or good. The proposition, as you admitted, is UNDECIDABLE. Do you understand what that means? Yes: it means that any chain of reasoning which purports to lead up to it must contain a flaw. Possibly it’s a flaw that comes in somewhere around the middle. Possibly the chain of reasoning contains no flaws right up until it allegedly links up to the proposition. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/49 "2011-01-03T00:48:22Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The point _ **is** _ that one’s liking for unicorns is irrelevant to whether 2+2=4. To link the reasoning to the proposition, you’d need to posit (in a glossed-over final step) the relevance of liking unicorns; if the reasoning _ **did** _ have the requisite bearing on the proposition, then attacking the reasoning _ **would** _ attack the proposition. As it happens, the reasoning in question lacks any such relationship to the proposition – and pointing that out is likewise addressing a flaw in the reasoning. > > Which is to say, the “unicorn” chain of reasoning has nothing to do with the “2+2=4” conclusion (or the “2+2=5” conclusion). In itself, there’s nothing faulty about it; possibly you _ **do** _ like unicorns. The flaw only comes in during the step you didn’t really make explicit: the part where you claim that liking unicorns has some bearing on what two plus two equals. If it did, then disproving it would disprove the conclusion. It doesn’t, which – disproves a different, but related, conclusion. Again this is completely irrelevant. The point is: _ **disproving the chain of reasoning does not disprove the conclusion** _ Are you trying to evade the fact that you were wrong on this point? What are you arguing? Do you genuinely still dispute the above basic fact? > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The moon-is-cheese proposition? As far as I can tell, it was neither philosophy nor subjective; it strikes me as an objective claim about a purely physical phenomenon. You think that the following: _Proposition: The moon is made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties_ Is an objective claim? Then you don’t understand what “objective” means. Any claim that is undecidable is by definition not objective. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Yes: it means that any chain of reasoning which purports to lead up to it must contain a flaw. Possibly it’s a flaw that comes in somewhere around the middle. Possibly the chain of reasoning contains no flaws right up until it allegedly links up to the proposition. Correct. If any chain of reasoning leading to X must contain a flaw, then _any chain of reasoning purporting to lead to X is automatically void and without use_. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/50 "2011-01-03T01:19:15Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Again this is completely irrelevant. The point is: > _ **disproving the chain of reasoning does not disprove the conclusion** _ > > Are you trying to evade the fact that you were wrong on this point? What are you arguing? Do you genuinely still dispute the above basic fact? Well, heck, if you’re right, then what difference would it make? I’d be wrong on the reasoning, but according to you the proposition would still remain untouched, right? 😉 No, all kidding aside, you’ve made a good point there, and I’ll gladly acknowledge it. I just think it fails to do what you think it does, and thus haven’t been timely enough in noting that it does _ **something.** _ I’ll admit it as often as you like, if it’ll help move you along to discussing what I consider the essential aspect: that the key to severing your “unicorn” reasoning from your “2+2=4” proposition is noting that the chain of reasoning in question is irrelevant to the conclusion in question, which crucially disproves a different but related conclusion. > [@](#): > > You think that the following: > > _Proposition: The moon is made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties_ > > Is an objective claim? Then you don’t understand what “objective” means. Any claim that is undecidable is by definition not objective. What, are we going to break out the dueling dictionaries? This usually doesn’t end well on the SDMB, but, yeah, okay, sure. Mine offers as the first two “Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality.” You’re claiming the moon (a) is an existing material object that actually has certain properties when it’s unobserved, and (b) has different properties under other conditions; I thus don’t see how your claim is anything but objective. Let’s also check Webster’s: > [@](#): > > Objective \Ob_jec"tive\ ([o^]b_j[e^]k"t[i^]v), a. [Cf. F. objectif.] > > 1. Of or pertaining to an object. [1913 Webster] > > 2. (Metaph.) Of or pertaining to an object; contained in, or having the nature or position of, an object; outward; external It goes on to explain that _“In the philosophy of mind, subjective denotes what is to be referred to the thinking subject, the ego; objective what belongs to the object of thought, the non-ego.”_ I don’t think that helps. > [@](#): > > Correct. If any chain of reasoning leading to X must contain a flaw, then _any chain of reasoning purporting to lead to X is automatically void and without use_. I – don’t quite see how that links back to whether an autistic savant could specialize in philosophy by skipping straight to X instead of dealing in chains of reasoning; the point of philosophy is to deal with those chains of reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/51 "2011-01-03T01:46:40Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’ll admit it as often as you like, if it’ll help move you along to discussing what I consider the essential aspect: that the key to severing your “unicorn” reasoning from your “2+2=4” proposition is noting that the chain of reasoning in question is irrelevant to the conclusion in question, which crucially disproves a different but related conclusion. The reason why your continued insistence on the point is irrelevant is because “irrelevant to the conclusion in question” is simply one form of fallacious reasoning. Can you not see that? Irrelevance is a basic type of logical fallacy. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What, are we going to break out the dueling dictionaries? This usually doesn’t end well on the SDMB, but, yeah, okay, sure. Mine offers as the first two “Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality.” You’re claiming the moon (a) is an existing material object that actually has certain properties when it’s unobserved, and (b) has different properties under other conditions; I thus don’t see how your claim is anything but objective You are acting purposefully obtuse, and taking it to bizarre extremes. My claim was not that the moon has _different properties under other conditions_, but that the moon has properties that are in principle impossible to be shown to have real material existence. If X cannot be shown in principle to have real material existence, then X is subjective. It (according to your definition), does not have “actual existence or reality”. Got it? > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I – don’t quite see how that links back to whether an autistic savant could specialize in philosophy by skipping straight to X instead of dealing in chains of reasoning; the point of philosophy is to deal with those chains of reasoning. This “links back” because you are implying that those chains of reasoning have some utility that makes them relevant. If the proposition is undecidable then they have no utility; they are not relevant. The savant has just as much a right to undecidable propositions as does any philosopher. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/52 "2011-01-03T02:07:19Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > The reason why your continued insistence on the point is irrelevant is because “irrelevant to the conclusion in question” is simply one form of fallacious reasoning. Can you not see that? Irrelevance is a basic type of logical fallacy. I’m not even sure you’re disagreeing, at this point. My argument is that disproving a chain of reasoning _ **does** _ disprove the conclusion – _ **if the chain of reasoning has the requisite bearing on the conclusion.** _ Whether it _ **has** _ that relevance can be asserted as one of the steps in the reasoning, or as a separate but related conclusion – or, as in the format you used, it can merely be implied, in which case I can’t say whether you meant for it to be a faulty step in the reasoning or a false conclusion. Were you implying the relevance as a faulty step in the reasoning, or as a false conclusion? Clear that up and maybe I could respond more helpfully. > [@](#): > > You are acting purposefully obtuse, and taking it to bizarre extremes. My claim was not that the moon has _different properties under other conditions_, but that the moon has properties that are in principle impossible to be shown to have real material existence. Whether they can be shown is irrelevant to whether those properties _ **do** _ have real material existence. > [@](#): > > If X cannot be shown in principle to have real material existence, then X is subjective. It (according to your definition), does not have “actual existence or reality”. Got it? I’m afraid you’re doing it wrong. AFAICT, it’s the difference between “there’s some cheese on the table” and “the cheese tastes good”. The latter is my subjective opinion; the former is a matter of objective fact. > [@](#): > > This “links back” because you are implying that those chains of reasoning have some utility that makes them relevant. If the proposition is undecidable then they have no utility; they are not relevant. The savant has just as much a right to undecidable propositions as does any philosopher. A savant – or philosopher – who merely produces an undecidable proposition with no reasoning behind it convinces no one. If nothing else, a philosopher can (a) do something useful by knocking down faulty reasoning, or (b) do something harmful by producing faulty but convincing reasoning, until someone points out the flaw in the reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/53 "2011-01-03T02:51:35Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > My argument is that disproving a chain of reasoning _ **does** _ disprove the conclusion – _ **if the chain of reasoning has the requisite bearing on the conclusion.** _ Your argument is wrong, and betrays a basic misunderstanding of formal logic. Suppose this is the chain of reasoning: A =\> B And A is proven to be false. This invalidates the chain of reasoning, but it does not disprove the conclusion, B. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/54 "2011-01-03T02:59:17Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Suppose this is the chain of reasoning: > > A =\> B > > And A is proven to be false. This invalidates the chain of reasoning, but it does not disprove the conclusion, B. I don’t want another possible equivocation to cross us up; spell out, word-for-word, exactly what you mean by “A =\> B”. No shorthand. No colloquialisms. I want to make sure we’re on the same page. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/55 "2011-01-03T03:04:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m afraid you’re doing it wrong. AFAICT, it’s the difference between “there’s some cheese on the table” and “the cheese tastes good”. The latter is my subjective opinion; the former is a matter of objective fact. The statement “the moon is made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties” is not tantamount to “there’s some cheese on the table.” It is tantamount to a statement of unprovable, unfalsifiable opinion. It is a subjective opinion, with no objective basis in reality. Saying “there’s some cheese on the table” is verifiable as objective fact. Saying “there is a unicorn in my backyard that no one can see but me” is superficially a statement about objective reality (in the completely facile sense of including words that describe material things), but it is in fact subjective – no one can prove or disprove it – it is as subjective an assertion as “the cheese tastes good.” > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > A savant – or philosopher – who merely produces an undecidable proposition with no reasoning behind it convinces no one. If nothing else, a philosopher can (a) do something useful by knocking down faulty reasoning, or (b) do something harmful by producing faulty but convincing reasoning, until someone points out the flaw in the reasoning. a) I have to repeat myself: knocking down faulty reasoning has no utility if the proposition that the reasoning supports is undecidable. b) Philosophers can absolutely do this ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/56 "2011-01-03T03:14:50Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Saying “there’s some cheese on the table” is verifiable as objective fact. Saying “there is a unicorn in my backyard that no one can see but me” is superficially a statement about objective reality (in the completely facile sense of including words that describe material things), but it is in fact subjective – no one can prove or disprove it – it is as subjective an assertion as “the cheese tastes good.” You seem to believe that “no one can prove or disprove it” makes a statement subjective. You disagree with, but make clear that you understand, my position: that, as per the dictionary definition, a statement counts so long as it describes material things in objective reality (as opposed to the subjective perception that, say, a given piece of cheese tastes good). The definitions I’ve cited make no mention of provability; what definition are you using to establish that, absent provability, an otherwise objective statement becomes subjective? > [@](#): > > a) I have to repeat myself: knocking down faulty reasoning has no utility if the proposition that the reasoning supports is undecidable. Not if folks sign on for the proposition because – not yet having spotted the flaw – they incorrectly believe the reasoning supports it to the point of making it decidable. ---
**Author:** ![Palooka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/palooka/32/2902_2.png) [@Palooka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palooka)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/57 "2011-01-03T03:15:20Z")
Why isn’t it just the simple case that something isn’t true unless it is proven? So if the reasoning for something is faulty, so is that conclusion (lacking an alternative proof.) It doesn’t make sense you can have a conclusion without a reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/58 "2011-01-03T03:20:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t want another possible equivocation to cross us up; spell out, word-for-word, exactly what you mean by “A =\> B”. No shorthand. No colloquialisms. I want to make sure we’re on the same page. I am not sure how I could possibly be any clearer without sacrificing generality, but here is a specific example: 1. P (Premise) 2. P =\> Q (premise) 3. Q (modus ponens) Now someone else comes along and proffers: 1. R (Premise) 2. R =\> ~(P =\> Q) (premise) 3. ~Q (modus ponens) (\<----- FALSE. INCORRECT. WRONG! ) ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/59 "2011-01-03T03:22:17Z")
> [@Palooka](#): > > Why isn’t it just the simple case that something isn’t true unless it is proven? So if the reasoning for something is faulty, so is that conclusion (lacking an alternative proof.) It doesn’t make sense you can have a conclusion without a reasoning. If you construct an axiomatic system of logic, there exist true, false, and undecidable theorems, regardless of whether proofs exist. This is a basic fact in mathematics/logic theory. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/60 "2011-01-03T03:26:36Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I am not sure how I could possibly be any clearer without sacrificing generality, but here is a specific example: > > 1. P (Premise) > 2. P =\> Q (premise) > 3. Q (modus ponens) I don’t know how I could be any clearer, but I want you to spell your examples out in big fine grammatical sentences; use plain English rather than symbols, with nouns and verbs and possibly some adjectives plus maybe a bunch of adverbs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579.md?page=4)