It's hard to believe...

Since my last update, Spencer raised the very issue of which I took note. Anderson at some point claims that if someone is not certain that 'a is a' (or that reason is ontological), then they can't consistently evaluate an argument and so there's no point in further dialogue. The principle that Anderson is assuming is this.

(A) A person can consistently evaluate an argument, only if they are certain that 'a is a'. 

Spencer and I have wondered what on earth could justify (A) in the first place. Why should anybody think it's true? Anderson's reply was to simply restate it. And that's to argue in a very tight circle. In fact, it's no argument at all. The closest thing that approaches an argument is Anderson's claim that if we aren't certain that 'a is a' then "perhaps" eternal is non-eternal.  But as I pointed out last time, that doesn't help in the least. 'Perhaps', here is the operative term. It marks a mere possibility. So maybe he's arguing for (A) by way of the following principle.

(B) If a person believes that it's even remotely possible that 'a is not a', then s/he cannot consistently evaluate an argument. 

But then what makes (B) true? Why should we buy it? Because Anderson says so? In fact, (B) is just a rewording of (A).

Spencer then pointed some of this out to Anderson. He asked Anderson to rationally justify the truth of (A) as opposed to merely restating it. And that's simply holding Anderson to the Gangadeanian standard. Remember they oppose "belief without proof." That's fideism. So we need some reason to accept (A) or (B).

That brings us to Anderson's response. 

@Spencer Hawkins And here I thought you were the one begging the question! Your post helps illustrate why you had a hard time correctly stating the original argument and making any progress since then. Your last few replies have been ignoring my responses and now you’ve officially ended the conversation in self-referential absurdity.

Earlier I was listing the many sidetracks you were bringing up. We can add: 

11. I can’t understand, why won’t you give a non-circular proof that we need proof? 12. I can’t understand, why isn’t there an infinite regress of proofs? 13. I can’t understand, why do we begin thinking with the laws of thought? 14. I can’t understand, why must we begin affirming some things are clear to avoid nihilism (the claim that nothing is clear)? 15. Why can’t our ultimate source of authority in thought set aside the laws of thought? 16. It isn’t clear to me what it means for something to be clear. 

I’ve already given sufficient answers above to address these. Go back and try to work it out. Do we even agree on the meaning of the terms we are using? What does it mean for something to be “clear”? What does it mean for something to be “eternal”? Can we distinguish “eternal” from “non-eternal”? How? How can this be known outside of experience and epistemic horizons? 

Your replies show that you haven’t given any thought to my answers. This disregard is inconsistent with your asking me for answers and arguments, and you have lost this one chance to work through it with me. See my last reply about why you can’t continue the discussion if nothing is clear. Try to figure out the argument and how it addresses your concerns. Figure out why your not being able to be sure about the law of identity affects each of your replies and ends the conversation. 

After all, perhaps discussions aren’t really discussions!

The first thing to note is that Anderson claims to think that Spencer is begging the question. But of course he doesn't say how. Both Spencer and I have pointed out explicitly where Anderson is assuming the thing he's been asked to prove. And he claims that Spencer's objection is somehow self-referentially absurd, but again he doesn't bother to explain where the contradiction lies.

More importantly, ask yourself: does this tell us why (A) or (B) is true? Does this prove (A) or (B)? Of course not.  Anderson is again simply assuming (A) or (B) and then shifting the burden of proof to Spencer. Basically, Anderson has been caught either arguing in a circle or taking (A) or (B) on faith and his response is simply to try and wiggle out of the conversation. Of course, it's not Spencer's job to "Try to figure out the argument and how it addresses" the charge of circularity. Anderson and company are the ones insisting that we need clarity at the basic level if we are to be able to evaluate arguments and make dialogue intelligible. That is they are claiming that (A) and (B) are true. They are also the ones that demand proof or rational justification for our beliefs. It's not Spencer's job to explain or "figure out" why that must be so.

That Anderson avoids answering the current challenge is par for the course. It's a pattern. I suspected this would be the result from the start. At least this time, it's been done in public for all to see. This latest comment is nothing more than presupposing the thing in question (namely, (A) or (B) above). All this stuff about not being able to "agree on the meaning of terms" or to determine the meaning of "clear" or "eternal" or distinguishing between eternal and not-eternal without clarity at the basic level, presupposes that we need clarity at the basic level to do all these things. And that's the very challenge at hand. That's the very thing we're asking Anderson to rationally justify!

I have a hard time believing that the other Gangadeanians can't see the glaring problem here. How can people that are intent on knowing the truth and critically examining their basic beliefs, fail to see how Anderson has illegitimately shifted the burden of proof after arguing in a tight circle? How can they fail to see that (A) or (B) is being presupposed rather than rationally defended? How can they not see that their very own worldview demands more than that? And how can Anderson take his own remarks seriously? I'm baffled at this point.