Common Sense vs. the First Principles

If there is any sense that is common to mankind, it is the sensibility of practical wisdom attained through experience. Sensibleness is:

“…possessing or containing sense, judgment, or reason; endowed with or characterized by good or common sense; intelligent; reasonable; wise”.[1]

Is this human faculty of wisdom created by experience from nothing whatever? Or is there an innate capacity awaiting to be exercised by the acquisition of experience?

Locke claims that there is no “a priori” knowledge, but that the human is endowed with the faculty of comparison, discrimination, and judgment between equal or not equal inputs; that is the basis for rational thought.

How does this relate to the First Principles? Let’s try comparison, discrimination and judgment on First Principle number one, Identity: “If it is true, then it is true”, or “If it exists, then it exists”. If the premise (“if it is true”) is compared to the conclusion (“then it is true”), each of these will be compared; discrimination will allow that they are coherent from premise to conclusion. Consequently, it will be judged to be a valid principle. Just by comparison, discrimination, and judgment, the truth value is determined. These are innate and a priori independent faculties within each individual.

If we compare, discriminate and pre-judge an impending event with an equivalent, previous event which we remember having experienced, we anticipate a result equivalent to that previous result. Can this anticipation of equivalency to previously known results be the same as “common sense”? (If we repeat it and expect different results, it is derisively referred to as insanity).

The second First Principle is the Principle of Non-Contradiction: “If it is false, then it can not also be true”. This is the definition of discrimination itself. Compare the premise, ”it is false”, to the conclusion, “ can not also be true”. Discrimination of this comparison shows equivalency between premise and conclusion. It is therefore judged to be a valid principle.

The third First Principle is, “It cannot be somewhat true and somewhat false”. The process of comparison, discrimination and judgment shows its true analytical value here. If a comparison is done, a discrimination will show that either there is a match, or there is no match. The idea of a discrimination showing “somewhat a match” is actually showing that it is not a complete match. Thus the judgment is “no, the items are not the same, because there are some differences”. There is no discrimination that will wind up neither true nor false, but in between.

It is around this last principle that anti-rationalists rally in a chorus of denial. If this principle is true, then relativity has no role in the thought process. The desire to have a relative process equates to the desire to eliminate true and false, and to adopt something else other than traditional western binary logic.

“Every effect has a cause that is necessary and sufficient”. This statement is more complex in itself, and yet is fundamental to rational thought. The first part, “Every effect has a cause”, requires a limitation of universal comparison in the sense that “every” effect cannot be known by one individual, or maybe even by all individuals. So the comparison is done on those effects that are within our range of experience. The realization comes quickly that every material object is an “effect”. There is no known object that caused itself. Everything was made to exist by an external cause other than itself. While this cannot be proved directly, it can be seen to be true by asking, “what object do we know of that limits its own ability to exist?” If this is not a feature, then there would be no object that could create itself from nothing, but just do it occasionally. If something comes from absolutely nothing, then there is nothing to restrict it from always and everywhere popping itself into existence. There would be no room for anything else in the universe. This must be true because if there were specific restrictions inhibiting this behavior a priori, then there was something (instructions at least) that existed beforehand.[2] It has not been found possible to identify an object that caused itself to exist from nothing.

Another aspect that would result from an effect that had no cause is that such an event would be similar to perpetual motion – something from nothing – in the sense that value (a free effect) is created from nothing whatsoever. This is not observed (or experienced), or there would be immense efforts to harness such a phenomenon.

We can safely accept this principle by comparing this statement to experience, discriminating between those two, and judging that: “Every effect has a cause”.

Now, if a cause is “insufficient”, we can compare the definition of “insufficient” to the concept of existence and be satisfied that the cause must be sufficient, or the existence would not have occurred. Likewise with the definition of the term “necessary”. If a cause is “not necessary”, then it is not required, and is not part of the cause we are seeking, as the cause of our effect. Both of these terms are definitions, and are known to be valid by the innate faculty of comparison, discrimination and judgment. (A definition is a form of identity, the First Principle discussed above).

The First Principles are, in fact, the basis for rational thought. To deny these is to deny that rational thought can exist, that truth exists, and that Absolute Truth exists. The next step beyond denial of the First Principles, though usually unacknowledged, is that nothing can be true, not even the statement that, “There is no God”.

The Nietzschean denial of the First Principles was based on the counter premise that these principles cannot be proved to be true, and must therefore be denied. However, seeking material proof for non-material concepts is a pursuit that once again fails the test of comparison, discrimination, and judgment. So the Nietzschean denial is actually a denial of the existence of these faculties and their innateness in humans. This is the reason that Nietzscheism and Anti-Rationalism are one and the same. Nietzsche has denied that which is easily observed to exist: he has declared that there are no faculties that allow us to perform comparison, discrimination, and judgment. He has denied the obvious.

Common Sense vs. Evolution

Now let’s apply our faculties to the concept of evolution. First we need a statement that will serve to describe evolution as fully as possible. Let’s start with this:

“Evolution is the idea that each species of life came, originally, from a prior, lower form of life. This idea regresses backward through time to an original, single life form. This single life form is of unknown origin, but probably happened randomly. Speciation (new species) came forth as a product of random mutation followed by natural selection to fit the environmental challenges”.

That is too unwieldy, so if possible, let’s condense and compact the phrase:

“Evolution is the idea that each species, throughout time came from a prior, lower form of life, starting with a single individual which probably self-assembled randomly.”

Let’s separate out some issues:

1) Each species came from a lower form of life.

2) This regresses to an original form of life.

3) This original life-form occurred spontaneously.

Now for item 1), we must first compare the evidence. Is there empirical or forensic paternity evidence that shows unequivocally that any species “B” descended directly from species “A”? The available evidence is in the form of fossilized skeletons that can be lined up artificially to show a supposed relationship because they look similar.[3] But looking similar in just one part of a creature, the skeletal structure, is not proof of paternity.

What about DNA evidence? All life seems to be made around the information in DNA. There are common components in DNA between all creatures, and the more similar the creatures, the more similar is the DNA. Is this proof of paternity? As with skeletal structure, it is circumstantial evidence.

Are there alternative theories? Of course there are, and here is one now:

If life spontaneously erupted from chemicals into the complexity of first life, then it could have happened more than once. In fact, as the earth cooled and the environment changed, the type of life that was spontaneously produced might well have been different, at different times. So perhaps as earth got cooler, more complexity erupted into life, every time a new eruption of life occurred.

Now this is obviously “post hoc”, i.e. a “Just So Story”. But it is no more unrealistic than the descent-with-modification “Just So Story” that has been declared “fact” by the evolutionary extrapolationists. It is a demonstration of two points: first, that coincidental, circumstantial evidence can never be a “fact”, since “fact” is what exists outside of us; it also cannot be unequivocal proof of a theorem. Second, a “Just So Story” can easily be concocted out of thin air to cover unexplained events with fabricated premises that cannot be proven. Some of these come to be culturally accepted as fact, regardless of the lack of, or poor quality of the original evidence. In this case, the original “Just So Story” is challenged by an equally suspect “Just So Story”, and demonstrates that such stories are not unequivocal proof of anything.

Returning to our original puzzle, in the absence of valid proof of paternity, we must conclude that the comparison of evidence to the statement, when placed through the faculty of discrimination, fails to confirm. The judgment would then conclude that 1) is not a valid proposition.

Of course if 1) fails, then 2) also fails, being completely dependent on 1). This is also true of 3), but 3) fails on its own demerits: life erupting spontaneously from any known condition of early Earth or otherwise is not known to happen, and has absolutely no empirical or forensic data to back it up for validation. So item 3) fails the faculties of common sense most handily. Moreover, the failure of item 3) reflects forward to cast suspicion upon items 1) and 2); none of the premises are anywhere near unequivocal, much less “fact”.

There are two other corollaries of evolution:

a) the speciation mechanism is “natural selection”,

and,

b) the mechanism occurs both with and without beneficial mutation.

So statement a) says that “evolution is caused by natural selection.” Natural selection is a naturally occurring phenomenon whereby genes within a given gene pool are selected for certain beneficial characteristics. Darwin’s finches showed adaptations to environmental changes through variation in beak size; however, there is no evidence by Darwin or anyone in the past 150 years that shows that any specie has become a totally new creature displaying genetics completely outside the original gene pool, never to revert to its progenitor.

Also, using a deck of cards as an example, it is not possible to select a totally new feature from a standard deck of cards. For example, one cannot draw a “27 of windmills” out of a deck of cards just purchased at the convenience store. That will never happen without some sort of prior intervention. Even so, it would not improve one’s poker hand. So by comparing statement a) to the evidence, the discrimination faculty will provide a difference, or non-congruity, to the judgment facility, which will produce an understanding of the falsity and non-coherence of the statement a).

This judgment applies just as readily to statement b); however, that statement has a peculiar quality of its own. Statement b) introduces the phenomenon of beneficial mutation, which would theoretically be retained by the creature in its battle for survival. So what evidence is provided for the occurrence of beneficial mutation? The search for an observed, documented beneficial mutation has produced nothing. To the contrary, mutations are either benign, neutral changes or they are a hindrance to the survivability of the organism. Again, by comparing the statement to the evidence, the discrimination faculty will provide a difference to the judgment facility, which will produce an understanding of the falsity and non-congruence of the statement.

Common Sense vs. Worldviews

Although all humans have the faculties of comparison, discrimination and judgment, these do not always produce coherent results. Why not? First let’s see what might go wrong in the comparison process.

Perhaps an individual prefers to compare the input information to a strongly held prejudice. Looking for congruence with a prejudice could very well produce an output that is not coherent with external reality.

For example, prejudice against defective parents – lacking a positive masculine father authority role model, or perhaps a smothering mother also lacking a masculine father authority role model – can produce a prejudice for unreasonable masculine models, and a rebellious prejudice against authority.

From prejudice to presupposition.

A prejudice is a concept that is held to be fact-based and “true”, yet might not coherent with objective observations. Prejudice is “Pre-judging”, without benefit of rational discernment. An example:

Prejudice: The Jews want to kill us and drink our blood.

Presupposition: Every Jewish statement or political move is evil and designed to hurt us.

If we need to ascertain the truth of a statement that we receive in our current environment such as the statement above, it is possible that the prejudice will carry more weight than the objective viewpoint:

Input statement: “The Jews are rich and we are poor because they have shut our roads down.”

Comparing this input statement with the presupposition above produces substantial agreement; the conclusion reached might be, “Our roads are shut down because the Jews are evil and want to hurt us; therefore we must step up our attacks on Jews”.

However, if the statement were compared to an objective observation such as “The Jews have shut down our roads because they fear that we will continue to kill them with our car bombs”, the conclusion would likely be that, “We are poor because our roads are shut down by the Jews due to their fear of our car bombs”. In this case, comparison with the presupposition produces a reaction that is the inverse of the comparison with the objective observation. It is, in fact, a cause and effect analysis that places a prejudice in the place of the cause, displacing all possible causes that might be derived objectively. Objectivity has lost out to a passionately held prejudice.

There are many prejudices in life. Listed below are a few that are pertinent, because they affect the thought processes of a great many people.

Prejudice: evolution is fact.

Resulting Presupposition: every set of bones that is found must therefore fit into a pattern of descent.

Prejudice: evolution is fact.

Resulting Presupposition: there is no need to postulate a deity.

Prejudice: there is neither truth nor fallacy.

Resulting Presupposition: There being no evil, then anything goes and must be tolerated.

Prejudice: Every human action is based upon struggle for survival and the “will to power”.

Resulting Presupposition: I must conquer my way to eliteness. The world must conform to me.

Prejudice: there is no higher authority.

Sub-Prejudice: only material reality exists.

Sub-Prejudice: Atheists are smarter, they are “Brights”.

Resulting Presupposition: Everything Richard Dawkins says is right and needs no critical analysis.

Eliminating Faulty Presuppositions

To search and destroy faulty presuppositions, one can work back into the process. Let’s take an example. Working in the reverse direction:

Presupposition: “There being no evil, then anything goes and must be tolerated.”

The basic premise in this statement is that, “there is no evil”. So this premise must be questioned, and it’s source determined. This can be difficult. In this case, “There being no evil” is derived from the underlying prejudice that “there is neither truth nor fallacy”; and even further back, the prejudice that “there are no First Principles”. Unless these negations are known to be true, the presupposition cannot follow. Ironically, then, the statement, “there is neither truth nor fallacy”, must be called “true” despite the position that there is “no truth”. This is a self-contradiction, or paradox; there is no internal coherence in this chain of statements. The paradox can be plainly stated as follows:

“It is true that there is no truth or fallacy.”

Or,

“[It is true] that [there is no truth or fallacy].”

Clearly the second part directly contradicts the first part; this self-contradiction is a type 1 paradox. Using a paradox as the basis for a type of thought process will clearly produce non-coherent results. Yet, as shown above, passion can drive a thought process into paradoxical, incoherent, yet rigidly and even violently held prejudicial channels.

One more example, from evolutionary theory: The fittest survive. Well, if they were NOT the fittest, they would not survive, would they? This is an example of a tautology, which is another way to say "definition". Since it is defined to be true, saying that it is true is not just redundant, it is logically trivial. Of course the fittest survive!

Truth cannot be found in a prejudiced thought process. And consequently, a worldview cannot be valid using a prejudiced thought process. A valid world view depends upon totally objectively examined premises at all levels.