RE: FW: That's yodeling, boys, not squealing!

["Dale Courtney" <dmcourtn@moscow.com>]

Debi Smith wrote: 
> While I do not mean to imply the Dougs are 
> schizophrenic, as this man obviously was,  I do find the 
> circular and self-referencing "logical thought" similar in 
> kind if not degree.  Debi Robinson-Smith

This is a kind of circular argument. However, that does not make its use
invalid, for *all* arguments for an absolute authority *must* ultimately
appeal to that authority for proof: otherwise the authority would not be
an absolute or highest authority. 

This problem is not unique to the "Dougs". Everyone, either implicitly
or explicitly, uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or
her ultimate authority for belief.

Here are some common examples that I routinely hear: 

"My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to
make it so."
"Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to
make it so."
"The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority
for discovering what is real and what is not, because our human senses
have never discovered anything else: thus, human sense experience tells
me that my principle is true."
"I know there can be no ultimate authority because I do not know of any
such ultimate authority."

Although these circular arguments are not always made explicit and are
sometimes hidden beneath lengthy discussions or are simply assumed
without proof, arguments for an ultimate authority in their most basic
form always take on a similar circular appeal to that authority itself.

But that again brings us back to the Modernity question and the denial
by some that they even have a worldview with appeals to ultimate
authority. 

Dale