Invalid Worldviews

Wow. Today's lecture was intense (side note: Just a warning- I'm kinda tired as I'm writing this. If there are mistakes/silly things I messed up on, just let me know). Nash got into a lot of different views, in order to explain how to refute them (and these are supposed to be just the basics). Today's post is definitely open for opinion and feedback. (Well, they all are really).

 Logically Self Defeating- violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Self-Reverentially Absurd- Same as Logically Self Defeating.
Killer Question- The question you would ask someone about that belief in order to show them the error of their logic.

Nash uses the above terms as a premise for the rest of his lecture. He introduces different worldviews, and explains why they are contradictory to themselves, and therefore, illogical.

Skepticism- The belief that no proposition can be true. (This is the definition Nash gives. It confuses me a bit, because I've always thought of skepticism as something a person applied to different things, not an overall worldview. Maybe he means Skepticism solely as a worldview. Still, I don't know of many people who believe in Truth as relativism, which is what this would technically be. )
Killer Question: How can this proposition be true? (This makes sense- if someone believes truth is relative, how can that be true? Its a paradox). Either way he/she answers, it proves the argument illogical.

Epistemological Relativism- (That's a mouthful...) All propositions are true. (Again, this is confusing to me... it seems absurd that anyone would think that everything could be truth and coexist... but maybe I just don't get out enough).
Killer Question: (Or statement more rather) I believe that to be false. (True and false at the same time? Nope. That statement in itself refutes the belief).

Evidentialism- It's immoral to believe something without sufficient proof.
KQ: Where is the proof for this claim?  (If anyone has any feedback as far as what they know about this particular worldview, please let me know... I had never heard of it.)

Scientific Positivism- All things considered truth must be able to be proven by the scientific method. (This one feels a bit more familiar. I feel like some people I know may even hold this belief).
KQ: How does the Scientific Method prove this statement? (This seems like common sense stuff, but more people than you'd think have contradicting beliefs such as this. I suppose by learning to refute these, we in essence prepare ourselves for refuting other world views).

Misology- hatred for logic and reason. (Again, I really don't know where Nash has seen followers of this particular doctrine. I think it's just that i haven't been exposed to many different worldviews).
KQ: So, how do you back this statement up, logically?
Here he brings up Radical Feminism. (Which he claims are followers of this belief. I'll assume his research is sound, because I don't have the time to go check it out, but feel free to research that).

Something random: at this point in the lecture, Nash pauses to bring up something really vital: Always be polite. When asking questions like this, or trying to break down someone else's argument, remember, their blind to the truth. Banging them over the head with it isn't going to make them like you- it's going to make them angry- and less likely to listen to you. If you present it calmly and rationally to them, they might actually take you seriously.

Deconstructionalism- (Lots of big words today) It is impossible to know the meaning of any text ever written. (In my opinion, he spends WAY to long on this one. He goes through several examples and fully elaborates on this topic. The solution is as simple as any of the others).
KQ: This topic inadvertantly insinuates the idea of relative truth- and therefore cannot be true. For example- if I was reading a book on Deconstructionalism, it could mean anything I wanted it to (because according to the belief the true meaning of text is ambiguous) and therefore I could derive out of the text that Deconstructionalism was actually false. Therefore, it is illogical.

Another random tidbit: Nash has this whole story about how colleges are corroding our faith through unconventional means these days. I completely agree. I think in essence, it applies to the world in general, not just colleges. What he says is along these lines: While colleges used to form deliberate attacks on the Christian faith, now, all they need to do is undermine it (make it trivial) to plant a seed of doubt in order to start corroding someones faith. They put in on the level as every other belief, saying that it's good to have something to believe in, and insinuating that what we believe doesn't matter. This goes back to relative truth. Society is not directly trying to say that Christianity is false- instead, they say that everything else can be true too, and that all beliefs are OK. This happens to be just as dangerous (if not more) than a frontal assault. Why? Because often we don't see it coming. A little bit of doubt goes a long way, and in this day and age, it is imperative that we keep on the lookout for arguments and insinuations like this.

Overall- I felt like this was just elaboration on the Law of Non-contradiction. Not that that's a bad thing- I did get some great stuff out of today's lecture- but it did feel like a bit much at times. Hopefully as I start emerging in society a bit more, and really seeing some of these worldviews in play, this will all make more sense.