Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 271 of 304 (505433)
04-11-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
04-05-2009 2:44 PM


Re: Closing remarks
I know I said I would not participate further in this thread but having been away for a while I feel that some clarification is necessary:
What absolutely shocks me is the complete inability of people to deal with this thread without discussing god/s.
Once you had eventually conceded that life on other planets is a logical possibility derived from objective evidence the only entities that remained equivalent to the IPU in objective evidential terms, the objective evidential terms originally stipulated by YOU in your OP, are the gods and deities that originally prompted this whole discussion.
What else are we supposed to discuss and why would anyone want to continue with the facade when we all know what we are really talking about?
It was agreed that we could logically derive the possibility of life on other planets even though there is absolutely zero evidence of this being the case. It was also agreed that this same logical process could be used to derive the possibility of alien visitations.
Yes - The logical possibility that this could potentially occur is derived from the known facts that intelligent life exists on this planet and that other planets exist.
Thus, logically based on these two facts alone and taking into account no other less evidenced criteria, we must conclude that life with a degree of space travel technology similar to our own is at least a purely logical possibility even if not a likelihood.
Message 335
The idea that the subjective experiences of many people of alien visitations could not be considered evidence of the possibility of alien visitations was completely rejected by some people, even though they conceded the logical possibility, and in spite of the fact that such observations would be a logical result of actual alien visitations. I find this bizarre.
Because you are conflating the objectively evidenced and logically derived possibility that this could occur with the objectively un-evidenced notion that this possibility has occurred.
The two propositions are very very different. The nature of evidence required to support a purely logical possibility that something could occur as opposed to the evidence required to determine whether or not something has actually occurred are obviously not the same.
See message 335 in the other thread for details (linked to in the paragraph above)
shooting star personal experience ⇒ personal belief in the possibility of shooting stars
Shooting stars are highly objectively evidenced phenomenon. A claimed sighting of a shooting star is in no way equivalent to a claim that one has experienced god's existence.
Claimed sightings of shooting stars are closer in nature to claims that one has just seen a cat cross the road than to spiritual expereinces of god's existence.
We also have multitudes of reports of people having the internal subjective experience of being in love, and while the specific experience itself cannot be shared, the experience is common enough that people accept this as a valid example of reality.
Does the subjective experience of love felt by a human being continue to exist independently and distinct from the experiencee once they cease to exist? Do you agree with me that subjectively experienced god concepts also cease to exist once the experiencee dies as there is no non-subjective basis for these concepts?
If not then the two are not equivalent and love has no bearing on this discussion.
immaterial pink unicorn lack of personal experience ⇒ lack of any documented personal belief in the possibility of immaterial pink unicorns
You initially claimed that faith required no evidence. Now you distinguish between those things that are worthy of faith and those things which are not on the basis of subjective "evidence".
Thus the IPU has been successfully deployed to reveal the specific nature of your special pleading. Namely subjective "evidence".
One could say that {all} science includes knowledge we that we are pretty sure we know, that {all} philosophy includes knowledge that we think we can know, and that {all} faith includes knowledge we cannot know that we know (hence we take it on faith).
Once you start considering subjective belief to be a form of knowledge in itself the flood gates of absurdity are opened and the dam of reason has been breached.
You deny that you are engaged in the circular reasoning of including belief itself as evidence upon which to base belief and yet you also assert that the IPU is an invalid concept on the basis that there is no subjective evidence in favour of the IPU because no-one has ever believed in it's existence.
Contradiction?
The problem is that objective and subjective are NOT a dichotomy, as you can have subjective experience of objective evidence, as in the shooting star example.
Yes. We all subjectively experience objective reality. Nobody disputes this. Nobody has at any point disputed this.
But you continue to fail to demonstrate that the notion of wholly "subjective evidence", evidence derived from no objective basis whatsoever, the form of evidence required to conclude gods, is in any way more reliable than biased guessing.
Until you can apply wholly "subjective evidence" (as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence) to something verifiable and demonstrate that this form of "evidence" is indeed more reiable than guessing any unverifiable conclusions made on the basis of this form of evidence must be deemed invalid.
For details see here Message 329
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2009 2:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 272 of 304 (505839)
04-18-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
04-05-2009 2:44 PM


Blue
It looks like your new thread request is not going to be promoted. I hope you won't mind if I post a brief reply here.
Here Message 1 you wrote the following:
I find I like the color blue ... and the color green, I'm ambivalent about yellow, purple is not high, and pink is fairly low on the list.
I did not choose to like blue, I just find that I do. I cannot explain the reason, it is just something that is what it is.
I find I like the dark chocolate ... and milk chocolate is low on the list.
I did not choose to like dark chocolate, I just find that I do. I cannot explain the reason, it is just something that is what it is.
I find there are people I like and those I don't. Again, it is not a choice, I just find that I do. I cannot explain the reason, it is just something that is what it is.
I once tried to be bi-sexual, but no matter how much I tried to choose I was not aroused. I cannot explain the reason, it is just something that is what it is.
I find that I believe in god/s, because I find that this is what I believe, and not something that I have chosen to believe.
So does the "pink unicorn" argument work here? No, because it is not a choice, there is no logic used to make a decision, so a logical argument does not apply, either pro or con. It is useless to argue that you should believe X instead of Y when there is no choice in whether you believe in X or Y.
Firstly no-one is telling you what you should believe. I am merely pointing out your evidential and logical inconsistencies in believing in some things but not others. You are welcome to be as inconsistent as you want and to believe whatever you damn well please.
I find I like the color blue......
Is not blue a concept that can be defined with reference to an empirical, objective shared common reality?
Is not your preference for blue (or chocolate or whetever) thus not the result of your subjective perception and interpretation of objective reality?
How are concepts with no evidential basis in empirical, objective, shared common reality (concepts such as immaterial pink unicorns or deities) evidentially comparable to your preference for blue?
It is useless to argue that you should believe X instead of Y when there is no choice in whether you believe in X or Y.
What does choice have to do with 'truth' in the context of the nature and reliability of evidence?
Isn't 'choice' just the latest example in a long and seemingly endless line of special pleading criteria?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2009 2:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2009 9:33 AM Straggler has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 273 of 304 (505844)
04-18-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Modulous
04-06-2009 4:45 PM


Re: Closing remarks
Thanks Mod.
Yes, that is trivially true. If your only point is that there is some deterministic element behind belief and that is principally based around experience, you'd probably not find any dissent amongst the atheists. That doesn't seem to be what you are saying though.
So, trying to tie this into the topic somehow - are you are arguing that subjective experiences count as evidence when it comes to faith based positions or not? If not, I don't see the relevance of you bringing it up.
If you are, then that seems to run counter to what you wrote a few paragraphs earlier about faith and evidence and reason.
What I have been doing is investigating what can be concluded by reason and logic, with subjective evidence. It seems to me that the most one can conclude is a possibility of the subjective evidence being true, regardless of what the evidence involves.
Thus we have Loch Ness and an experience of {something} that has been blown up into the Lake Ness Monster. While it becomes increasingly difficult to conclude that a cryptozooic plesiosaur was responsible, we don't know if this represents the original experience or what has been conflated by urban legend myth making.
Using straggler's application of logical extrapolation from know life on earth, it is logical to believe that the creature could have been a cryptozooic plesiosaur, and thus we see that logical extrapolations from known evidence without any confirming evidence for the extrapolation is just as prone to error as assuming that subjective experience must be true.
Then we have the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, believed to be extinct (like the cryptozooic plesiosaur), but with a number of subjective experiences providing evidence of the possibility of continued existence.
We also see that some fairly large animals have been discovered recently (in Viet Nam iirc).
When we get to the issue of alien life, we see straggler argue that it is logical based on known life on earth, and that the logical extrapolation, no matter how tenuous or convoluted it becomes, means that belief in alien life is rational, being "evidentially based" in spite of the fact that there is no, zero, zip, nada, confirmatory evidence of life forming on other planets.
We see that taking this approach to the logical extreme, normal for testing the validity of any logical argument, results in the concept that aliens could have visited earth, and a further logical conclusion would be that if this were so, that then there would be observations of this happening. By this logic we can conclude that sightings of alien visitations are a possibility.
Then we see that the reports of alien visitation observations could be seen as validating evidence for this logical extrapolation.
Thus I conclude that subjective can indicate possibility. I also conclude that nothing more can be concluded.
Why is none needed? Because the IPU is raised when somebody argues that there is no evidence or rationale for believing in the entity that they do, that it is just accepted on pure faith. This is special pleading and it can be shown by raising the IPU. Shortly after raising the IPU or similar entities, we find that pure faith gets kicked out of bed and all sorts of reasons and claims of evidence are forthcoming.
The problem that I have with this, is that if the IPU argument only applies to belief of "pure faith" that then it is not a general logical argument, it only applies in one situation, and that makes the argument itself one of special pleading. I've started another thread to discuss "pure faith" so we can extract this element from this thread.
This is where we get back to the issue of belief based on subjective evidence as opposed to belief by "pure faith" and that the subjective evidence is a causal agent for any such belief.
Yes, that is trivially true. If your only point is that there is some deterministic element behind belief and that is principally based around experience, you'd probably not find any dissent amongst the atheists. That doesn't seem to be what you are saying though.
Then we can agree that any belief that falls in this category cannot be considered of the same class as the IPU.
To briefly repeat: if you want to argue that you avoid special pleading with an appeal to evidence, no matter how dodgy that evidence, you are welcome to try that route out.
The fact remains that a subjective experience is "real" to the person who experienced it, and whether they believe they saw a black cat cross the road, a meteor or a monster in Loch Ness, they have a belief based on that experience.
I've had subjective experiences of Leszi, such that for a (relatively short) period of time, I believed that they existed. I have friends who have likewise had experiences that mean they believe in Djinn. Out of curiousity, if we replaced the IPU with Leszi or Djinn (so that we can sidestep your issues with subjective experience) how would you respond to the argument then?
Having an experience is justification for believing that what you experienced occurred. You may find a better explanation later, but at the time, believing the experience was the best explanation you had of what occurred.
Likewise experiences of cyrptozooic creatures or aliens.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2009 4:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2009 9:09 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 281 by Modulous, posted 04-22-2009 4:03 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 274 of 304 (505850)
04-18-2009 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by RAZD
04-18-2009 8:18 AM


Re: Closing remarks
What I have been doing is investigating what can be concluded by reason and logic, with subjective evidence. It seems to me that the most one can conclude is a possibility of the subjective evidence being true, regardless of what the evidence involves.
I accept this possibility. But have no reason to think wholly subjective evidence (as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence) is any better than guessing.
You continue to fail to demonstrate otherwise or even to acknowledge that there is a necessary difference between the two.
When we get to the issue of alien life, we see straggler argue that it is logical based on known life on earth, and that the logical extrapolation, no matter how tenuous or convoluted it becomes, means that belief in alien life is rational...
Life exists. Other planets exist.
Based on the two facts available is life on other planets possible or impossible?
What is "tenuous or convoluted" about that?
The likelihood is a different question that can be assessed on different evidence. Again? How many more times will you fail to grasp this?
We see that taking this approach to the logical extreme, normal for testing the validity of any logical argument, results in the concept that aliens could have visited earth, and a further logical conclusion would be that if this were so, that then there would be observations of this happening. By this logic we can conclude that sightings of alien visitations are a possibility.
Is alien visitation a possibility? Yes. An actuality? The paucity of evidence suggests not. "Help I have been probed by aliens" is not enough to conclude that such a fantastic possibility has actually occurred.
Once again you hugely conflate logical possibilities with probabilities and the evidence required to determine what "could happen", what "might happen" and what "has happened"
Dude how many times must I point this conflation out before you stop.............?
Then we see that the reports of alien visitation observations could be seen as validating evidence for this logical extrapolation.
Thus I conclude that subjective can indicate possibility. I also conclude that nothing more can be concluded.
A possibility that is "evidenced" in such a way as to be little more reliable than guessing as to what might exist.
The fact remains that a subjective experience is "real" to the person who experienced it, and whether they believe they saw a black cat cross the road, a meteor or a monster in Loch Ness, they have a belief based on that experience.
Yes it is subjectively real. But is it in itself evidence?
I would treat evidence as that which enables us to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Wholly subjective experiences (as distinct from the subjective interpretation of objective evidence) may form the basis of a belief but on what basis do we consider that belief "evidenced" in terms of it's reliability?
Having an experience is justification for believing that what you experienced occurred. You may find a better explanation later, but at the time, believing the experience was the best explanation you had of what occurred.
Likewise experiences of cyrptozooic creatures or aliens.
Has anyone really disputed that?
I (hope) I have maintained throughout that you are entitled to believe in whatever entities you choose based on whatever experiences of those entities you have had.
I thought this whole debate originated when those of us who do not deem such experiences to be a reliable basis on which to believe declared our atheism towards such entities and you told us that this non-belief was unjustified. No?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2009 8:18 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2009 9:55 AM Straggler has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 275 of 304 (505851)
04-18-2009 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Rahvin
04-06-2009 7:32 PM


Re: Why the "Immaterial Pink Unicorn" is a valid argument
The end seems to mimic the beginning: RAZD continues to argue that his belief in an un-evidenced entity is somehow different from other un-evidenced entities,...
Seeing as this has not been my argument, your conclusion is false.
treated us with a variety of woefully inaccurate Venn diagrams
Curiously I see no evidence of this woeful inaccuracy. Claiming something does not make it so.
he attempts to support the notion that, so long as an idea isn't contradicted by evidence, it's perfectly rational to have confidence in that idea's accuracy.
Again, not my claim. Rather, it is logical to assume that it may be valid. Curiously this is the same claim made by science.
Technically speaking, if I see a cat run across the street and nobody else sees it, I have had a subjective experience. I cannot verify that the cat exists, and there is no reason for anyone to believe or disbelieve me. Nobody suggests that we should disbelieve any and all claims made by an individual. RAZD would have us believe that this means that an individual's "feeling" (or other subjective experience) about the existence of a deity should be given the same benefit of the doubt.
Seeing as I have specifically excluded deities from the discussion on this thread, the only way you can reach this conclusion is by inventing things I have not claimed.
All I argue is that (a) your experience is an indication of the possibility that a cat crossed the road and (b) that it is justification for you to believe you saw a cat cross the road.
If someone claims to have seen a cat, this is relatively mundane, and is supported by the evidence we have all seen that cats do exist, and so his claim has a high probability of being true ("true" in this sense meaning "the cat actually existed in objective reality, and did in fact run across the street").
As noted, the fact that people have had similar experiences increases their likelihood of accepting the experience of others.
Claiming that a deity exists, however, is ...
NOT part of this thread. I don't understand the inability to accept this restriction.
How many people have had dreams involving ...
Nor is it about dreams or fantasies.
RAZD has said that having confidence in an un-evidenced claim that is not contradicted by evidence is non-reasonable but not unreasonable, and is rational.
RAZD is wrong.
Having confidence in any un-evidenced claim is irrational. The rational response is tentative skepticism - that is, have no confidence until a reason for confidence is supplied.
Nice straw man. Curiously what I have claimed is that subjective evidence may indicate a possibility of truth, which is tentative skepticism.
Herein lies the flaw in RAZD's reasoning. As I have exmplained, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So you are saying that claiming that subjective evidence may indicate a possibility of truth is an extraordinary claim? Or is the "extraordinary" part the straw man that you have attached to my argument.
Of course, all one needs to do to verify that the IPU is supported by subjective evidence is to claim to have had a subjective experience regarding the IPU, and suddenly "C" and "D" become identical. That's simply the weakness of subjective claims.
So you are saying that lying is a way to find truth? Is this why you are misrepresenting my positions?
RAZD has demonstrated his artistic aptitude by gracing this thread with a variety of wonderfully colored Venn diagrams. His favorite shows that science is a subset of philosophy, which itself is a subset of faith.
His diagrams are inaccurate, and misleading in the extreme.
Science is in no way a subset of faith - science requires evidence, while faith is defined by an absence of evidence.
Once again, claiming something does not make it so.
faith —noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Science is based on philosophy, as it is through philosophy that the scientific method was developed. Philosophy is also based on "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Science is based on the confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of material evidence being representative of reality. It is based on the belief that this material evidence, that is assumed to be true, can then be used to make repeated observations of that reality and form concepts based on that belief.
This is a necessary first basis for all science. We assume that what we see, smell, taste, touch is a part of reality, and that this evidence does not lie about reality.
The IPU is supported by exactly as much evidence as RAZD's undefined deity - none.
You know, I'm going to have to start declaring victory every time somebody says this thread is concern with deities in general and my beliefs regarding same in specific.
Message 1
This thread is ONLY for discussing this logically false argument and NOT whether atheism or deism or last-thursdayism is a logically valid position.
Now if you want to concede that the IPU does not apply to any other argument, then feel free.
If you don't want to concede this, then you should be able to discuss the topic without continually introducing subjects that are by definition of the thread off topic.
You are behaving like John Fulton et al talking about Polonium halos on the Uranium halo thread.
The very fact that he created this thread out of emotional outrage over the ridiculousness of the IPU argument, followed by his utterly ineffectual attempts to invalidate the comparison of the IPU to other unsupported and un-contradicted concepts, proves that the IPU argument is both valid and effective.
ROFLOL. Talk about a circular argument.
What you are dealing with is confirmation bias: this is what you want to believe. Unfortunately you have not been able to demonstrate the validity of the IPU as a logical argument on it's own merits.
For this you got a POTM nomination?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Rahvin, posted 04-06-2009 7:32 PM Rahvin has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 276 of 304 (505852)
04-18-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Straggler
04-18-2009 7:05 AM


Re: Blue
Thanks Straggler, your eagerness to discuss this demonstrates why that thread needs to be promoted.
Firstly no-one is telling you what you should believe. I am merely pointing out your evidential and logical inconsistencies in believing in some things but not others. You are welcome to be as inconsistent as you want and to believe whatever you damn well please.
As are you. Thanks.
So the IPU argument is useless as a logical argument. It doesn't seem to apply to any of the concepts within the bounds of this thread. If you want to concede this, we can close this thread and move on.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2009 7:05 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Admin, posted 04-18-2009 10:06 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 280 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2009 4:46 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 277 of 304 (505854)
04-18-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Straggler
04-18-2009 9:09 AM


Re: Closing remarks
Thanks Straggler
I accept this possibility.
Is alien visitation a possibility? Yes.
Yes it is subjectively real.
Has anyone really disputed that?
We seem to come to some understanding of the limits and possibilities available from subjective evidence.
Wholly subjective experiences (as distinct from the subjective interpretation of objective evidence) may form the basis of a belief but on what basis do we consider that belief "evidenced" in terms of it's reliability?
I hope you see that what you are asking is impossible - what you are (really) looking for is external confirming evidence of a wholly subjective experience, which cannot happen by definition of it being wholly subjective.
A possibility that is "evidenced" in such a way as to be little more reliable than guessing as to what might exist.
That is my conclusion from extrapolating out to alien visitations from the evidence of life on earth as well, that it is little different from guessing, and the basis of many a science fiction story.
Thus when we talk about concepts that are based on logic and reasoning, using our individual experiences of reality to filter what we individually believe to be reality, we can find many concepts that can be accepted tentatively as true, and have confidence in the truth of these concepts from repetitions of experiences.
There are many concepts that you and I will agree on, such as the probability of alien life on other planets.
And we have others that are little better than guesses. Your guesses may well be different from mine.
I thought this whole debate originated when those of us who do not deem such experiences to be a reliable basis on which to believe declared our atheism towards such entities and you told us that this non-belief was unjustified. No?
I don't believe I used the word unjustified, rather what I said was that the logical conclusion was that we don't know, and that any other conclusion - pro or con - is not a logical result, but one based on subjective opinion - the whole world view thing. Your world view justifies what you personally believe.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2009 9:09 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2009 4:33 PM RAZD has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 278 of 304 (505856)
04-18-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by RAZD
04-18-2009 9:33 AM


Re: Blue
RAZD writes:
Thanks Straggler, your eagerness to discuss this demonstrates why that thread needs to be promoted.
The shared eagerness of participants (including me) to endlessly rehash the same arguments demonstrates no such thing. I think everyone's had their say, and their willingness to keep saying it isn't an indicator of the fecundity that would justify yet another thread for this topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2009 9:33 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2009 11:37 PM Admin has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 279 of 304 (506009)
04-21-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by RAZD
04-18-2009 9:55 AM


Back to the Beginning
RAZD writes:
There are many concepts that you and I will agree on, such as the probability of alien life on other planets.
The possibility of alien life is a scientific hypothesis derived from objective evidence. The possibility that a deity (such as the IPU) actually exists is not a scientific hypothesis derived from objective evidence. You conceded this earlier in this thread. Thus the two possibilities are not evidentially equivalent in the manner required for your OP as originally conceived and written to hold true. Nor are they equivalent in terms of any reference to unevidenced faith as per your original position in this extended discussion.
It seems that you are too stubborn, or blinded by the inadequacy of your position, to cope with the subtleties of this difference as applied to the various subsequent examples you have raised or to appreciate why this distinction is so important. So let's just stop banging our heads against a brick wall and agree that the two things are not evidentially equivalent (which is all that really matters in the context of this discussion) and leave it that shall we?
That is my conclusion from extrapolating out to alien visitations from the evidence of life on earth as well, that it is little different from guessing, and the basis of many a science fiction story.
But it is you, not I, that has consistently argued that the science fiction conclusion of this actuality should be given any airtime in terms of evidence. It is you, not I, that has arrived at this ridiculous extrapolation by consistently conflating the evidence required to determine possibilities, probabilities and actualities. A conflation that serves only to confuse the issue in a disingenuous attempt to promote your own flailing arguments.
RAZD writes:
....and thus we see that logical extrapolations from known evidence without any confirming evidence for the extrapolation is just as prone to error as assuming that subjective experience must be true
With that one sweeping statement you have denounced the validity of a large and key component of the scientific method.
(objective evidence) + (deductive logic) = (hypothesis)
Nobody has ever argued that every scientific hypothesis will be confirmed as correct. But to claim that this method of determining possibilities is no better than guessing via means of wholly subjective "evidence" is preposterous. Was General Relativity just a lucky guess? Are the IPU and other unevidenced deities just as likely to exist as the Higgs Boson? Or dark matter? Was the discovery of Tiktaalik the result of subjective "world view"? Was the specific predicted value of the CMB just a fluke?
Think about what you are saying here RAZD. Are you really denouncing our proven ability to derive highly evidenced possibilities from evidence and logic? How do we make predictions to test? How do we discover new evidence if not by seeking out those results that are the logical extrapolation of known evidence? How does science progress?
Is the human-chimp common ancestor directly evidenced? Have you ever seen one? Do we have any direct evidence of the physical actuality of this phenomenon? Anything that is not inferred from indirect evidence to some degree? You and I would both agree that this concept is as evidenced as any in science yet is this not derived by means of the application of minimal logical extrapolation to a ream of exceptionally reliable and tested indirect objective evidence?
Unless subjective "evidence" can be proven to be more reliable than guessing it should be considereed to be no more reliable than guessing. The logical extrapolation of objective evidence that you are so keen to discredit has already passed that particular test with flying colours. That is why the logical extrapolation of objective evidence is a key component of the scientific method (i.e. scientific hypothesis) whilst subjective "evidence" is most definitely not.
Straggler writes:
Wholly subjective experiences (as distinct from the subjective interpretation of objective evidence) may form the basis of a belief but on what basis do we consider that belief "evidenced" in terms of it's reliability?
I hope you see that what you are asking is impossible
So finally you concede that you are simply unable to demonstrate that wholly subjective "evidence" is superior to merely guessing in terms of reliability. Thank-you for that. The question must therefore be asked:
On what basis is your "subjective evidence" argument even remotely valid....?????!!!!
And why is it impossible to test this? If I have a feeling or even a vision that placing my life's savings and home on "red 19" will make my fortune I am considered to be an irrational fool (not to mention almost certainly bankrupt and homeless). If I have an equally subjectively "evidenced" feeling or "vision" regarding the existence of gods this is suddenly worthy of the deepest respect and a reason not just for me to believe this irrational nonsense but, according to you, a reason why others should accept my beliefs at least to the point of agnosticism too. This is logically and evidentially inconsistent. Indisputably so.
So why can we not apply subjective evidence to something testable? Something like gambling? Why will you only apply such "evidence" to the "unknowable"? Let's actually see whether this subjective "evidence" you have so fiercely advocated is even remotely deserving of the term "evidence" by actually testing it's reliability and validity. Why are you so afraid to do this?
I don't believe I used the word unjustified, rather what I said was that the logical conclusion was that we don't know, and that any other conclusion - pro or con - is not a logical result, but one based on subjective opinion - the whole world view thing. Your world view justifies what you personally believe.
And you have also agreed that some world views are more logical and rational than others. Given that every single supposedly unknowable and subjectively "evidenced" god concept that has ever subsequently become knowable has been refuted do you think that a degree of non-belief, a degree of atheism, is logical and evidentially valid with regard to any god concept derived from subjective "evidence" alone?
Do you still dispute that the answer I originally gave way back when we started this discussion - i.e. "Philosophically possible but unlikely" - Is rational, logical and evidentially justified?
Bearing in mind all that has been discussed do you still maintain that agnosticism, as opposed to a degree of atheism, is the evidentially consistent, logical and rational position regarding the actual existence of gods?
Answer that one last question if no other...........
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2009 9:55 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2009 11:28 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 280 of 304 (506010)
04-21-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by RAZD
04-18-2009 9:33 AM


Re: Blue
Thanks Straggler, your eagerness to discuss this demonstrates why that thread needs to be promoted.
Yes and no.
We have had obviousness, absurdity, belief, subjective evidence and choice as special pleading criteria so far.
Is there any end to the list? If not then, whilst I will certainly take part, another thread of ever changing special pleading criteria does not seem that worthwhile.
Straggler writes:
Firstly no-one is telling you what you should believe. I am merely pointing out your evidential and logical inconsistencies in believing in some things but not others. You are welcome to be as inconsistent as you want and to believe whatever you damn well please.
As are you. Thanks.
And yet, whilst you have made multiple desperate and dispirate changes to the nature of your special pleading criteria, you have never yet once been able to demonstrate any inconsistencies in my arguments without repeatedly and intentionally conflating possibilities, probabilities and actualities.
Go figure.
So the IPU argument is useless as a logical argument. It doesn't seem to apply to any of the concepts within the bounds of this thread. If you want to concede this, we can close this thread and move on.
The IPU argument applies to none of the conceptual possibilities derived from objective evidence that you have mentioned in this thread. No matter how unlikely or even fantastical these may be deemed to be for other equally objectively evidenced reasons. Possibilities, probabilities and actualities.............we have been through this a dozen times at least. Do you really not "get it" or is your apparent ignorance a debating tactic?
The IPU remains totally logically and evidentially equivalent to the concept of deities. Neither are possibilities that we have any reason to think even might be valid by any reliable standard. Both, whilst philosophically possible, are almost certainly completely the result of human invention by the standards of anything that can be meaningfully called "evidence".
You concede that and we will take it from there...........
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2009 9:33 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by mark24, posted 04-22-2009 8:53 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 293 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2009 11:28 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 296 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2009 12:29 AM Straggler has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 281 of 304 (506049)
04-22-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by RAZD
04-18-2009 8:18 AM


Complication unnecessary
Thus I conclude that subjective can indicate possibility. I also conclude that nothing more can be concluded.
And of course, not having a subjective experience does not rule out possibility, being able to imagine something can also be indicative of possibility - but not being able to imagine it does not rule it out either. This is an entirely uncontroversial position and I've not seen anybody dispute it.
The problem that I have with this, is that if the IPU argument only applies to belief of "pure faith" that then it is not a general logical argument, it only applies in one situation, and that makes the argument itself one of special pleading. I've started another thread to discuss "pure faith" so we can extract this element from this thread.
This is where we get back to the issue of belief based on subjective evidence as opposed to belief by "pure faith" and that the subjective evidence is a causal agent for any such belief.
I thought subjective evidence only indicated possibility? You have earlier stated that your belief in certain entities does not rest on reason or evidence, and you are also claiming that subjective evidence is reason to hold a belief in those same certain entities.
But this is the point - when asked why someone believes in certain entities some people say 'pure faith', or words to that effect. It is under these circumstances that the IPU argument works wonders as an argument to show that this isn't a strong position to hold. What usually follows is a change of argument to some other avenue, such as over the validity of subjective evidence.
If you are arguing that 'pure faith' is poor grounds upon which to found an argument or justify a belief - then we're all in agreement on the original point at least. The IPU is a valid argument against faith.
Then we can agree that any belief that falls in this category cannot be considered of the same class as the IPU.
There is a possible deterministic pathway to belief in the IPU, just as there is a possible deterministic pathway to believing that your mother has been replaced by an impersonator.
The fact remains that a subjective experience is "real" to the person who experienced it, and whether they believe they saw a black cat cross the road, a meteor or a monster in Loch Ness, they have a belief based on that experience.
Yes they do. Nobody has disputed that. The dispute isn't about whether people can have subjective experiences that lead them to believe things. Are you sure you followed my argument? This seems entirely unrelated to it, and since I stated in my previous post that there is no dispute over this trivial point - I'm confused as to why you think it is important to repeat it in response to a statement about escaping special pleading with an appeal to evidence.
That is what you are proposing to do, escape from special pleading with an appeal to some evidence. Not a problem at all. But now we aren't talking about just 'faith', and you have to appeal to even weak evidence if you want to elevate certain beliefs above the belief in the IPU. That's the point of bringing up the IPU! You have consistently attempted to elevate your beliefs to a category of confidence above that of the IPU. Thus showing that you do indeed appeal to reason and evidence and don't just rely on faith.
The IPU has served its purpose and that would lead us onto a discussion over the reliability of the kinds of subjective experiences we're talking about in concluding true things about the world.
Having an experience is justification for believing that what you experienced occurred.
No, it's just an explanation. A justification would be 'I believe what I experience: I am a naive empricist. I think that naive empiricism is a reliable means to uncover truth because...' - it's quite a different construct. One is a description the other is an argument to justify a belief.
You didn't really answer the question, though. Either I ask again or I try to read between the lines. I am not trying to misrepresent you but I'll try to do the latter and hope you will make it explicit.
Mod's Question: Why do you believe in the existence of X? Why don't you believe in the existence of Leszi?
RAZD's Answer: Because I haven't had an experience of Leszi.
Mod's Question: But thousands have...so repeating the question...?
RAZD's response: ?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2009 8:18 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2009 12:10 PM Modulous has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 282 of 304 (506079)
04-22-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Straggler
04-21-2009 4:46 PM


Re: Blue
Straggler,
I actually dreamt about the IPU last night, really wierd. It could actually be either invisible, or a visible pink unicorn, or even translucently pink. I think I was subconciously going over it my mind & struggling with the contradiction of being visibly pink & at the same time invisible. That was how my REM dreamtime resolved it (presumably).
On the other hand, now we have evidence it exists...
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2009 4:46 PM Straggler has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 283 of 304 (506092)
04-22-2009 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Modulous
04-22-2009 4:03 AM


Re: Complication unnecessary
quote:
Thus I conclude that subjective can indicate possibility. I also conclude that nothing more can be concluded.
And of course, not having a subjective experience does not rule out possibility, being able to imagine something can also be indicative of possibility - but not being able to imagine it does not rule it out either. This is an entirely uncontroversial position and I've not seen anybody dispute it.
I dispute it.
Subjective evidence indicates conceivability, not possibility. Possibility is still unknown in the absence of any real evidence.
A dream about an ostrich with the head of a rhino is "subjective evidence," but it doesn't mean that such a thing can actually exist. It simply means that it's conceivable. Additional evidence is required to ascertain whether such a thing is possible.
In the case of IPUs and deities, we have no idea whether such fantastical entities are possible - nobody has ever seen one or detected evidence of one before. We know only that they are conceivable within the human mind.
Let's use a few more examples other than rhino-headed ostriches.
A woman has a dream that has overtones of impending doom. The very next day, her husband is injured in a car accident.
Does this mean that it's possible that dreams can tell the future?
Of course not!
It means only that such an idea is conceivable. There is no evidence that suggests that her vague dream and her husband's car accident were related, and neither is there any proposed mechanism by which the dream could have foretold the future. We have no idea whether it is or is not possible, given no additional information.
Jim can feel the love of Christ everywhere he goes. He sees the proof of God in every sunset, in teh beauty of creation.
Does this mean that it's possible that God exists?
No!
It means that the Christian deity is conceivable in Jim's mind, and he subjectively interprets his objective observations to support his internal concept of God. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether the Christian deity can actually exist (let alone whether it actually does).
RAZD is asserting that all concepts that are not contradicted by evidence are possibilities. That's not true. Concepts that are supported by objective evidence and are not contradicted are possibilities. Concepts that are neither supported nor contradicted remain nothing more than concepts.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with identifying conceivable ideas. But when you choose one concept out of the teeming, infinite mass of all other concepts and have confidence in that concept such that you say "I believe this," you are engaging in special pleading. This is jsut as true for such concepts as God, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, fairies, goblins, and ghosts.
Subjective evidence alone tells us nothing as to the possibility of anything. It only tells us that such a thing is conceivable by the human mind.
Possibility can only be determined in the light of additional evidence. For example, it's possible that a cat walked across the street moments agol this is determined by the fact that we know that both cats and streets actually do exist, and we know the manner in which a cat would cross a street - most of us have actually seen cats crossing streets. It is therefore possible that a cat moments ago crossed the street.
We do not know if it's possible that a gnarlfmag flew past the moon last night. We don't know what a "gnarlfmag" is, whether it's able to fly at all, or whether it even exists. If we leave the properties of teh "gnarlfmag" undefined as with RAZD's deity, then we cannot even ascertain whether the "gnarlfmag" has self-contradictory properties, or if some of those properties violate the laws of physics and therefore make the "gnarlfmag" an impossibility. The fact that I've written about the "gnarlfmag" is now subjective evidence for its existence, but that only shows that the "gnarlfmag" is conceivable. It does not show that its existence is possible, and it certainly doesn't give any reason to have confidence in its actual existence.
This is why RAZD's position (and the position of all deists) fails on so many levels. "God" is conceivable. We have no idea whether "god" is possible, and certainly no reason to have confidence in "god's" actual existence. Any such assertion without corresponding objective evidence involves special pleading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Modulous, posted 04-22-2009 4:03 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Modulous, posted 04-22-2009 1:48 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 292 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2009 11:28 PM Rahvin has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 284 of 304 (506095)
04-22-2009 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Rahvin
04-22-2009 12:10 PM


Re: Complication unnecessary
Subjective evidence indicates conceivability, not possibility. Possibility is still unknown in the absence of any real evidence.
A dream about an ostrich with the head of a rhino is "subjective evidence," but it doesn't mean that such a thing can actually exist. It simply means that it's conceivable. Additional evidence is required to ascertain whether such a thing is possible.
I think you are just using words to mean things differently, but once we extract the communal meanings, we'll find that we agree.
It is possible that an ostrich with a Rhino head could exist, and you don't need a dream to have that experience. It is easy enough to conceive of an amusing confluence of events which leads someone to actually see what appears to be an ostrich with the head of a rhino. What I interpreted RAZD to be saying is that there are a number of possibilities here:
1) The ostrich has the head of a rhino, amazing!
2) It's a strange illusion caused by a peculiar alignment of the two animals and various obfuscating factors.
3) It's an hallucination.
4) etc.
Now, it may turn out that it is impossible for a human to have a hallucination of an ostrich with a rhino head. Maybe our brains simply cannot conjur that image in an hallucinatory fashion.
It may be impossible for any strange accidental constellation type alignment of features to produce anything like an ostro-rhino and it might not be possible for such an animal to physically exist.
Just like if I saw a magic trick. I might think to myself. "There are two possibilities here":
1) The magician sawed the woman in half, and then put her back together again.
2) The magician merely made it seem as if he sawed the woman in half using a variety of techniques that exploit shortcuts the human brain takes in perception.
Though that doesn't mean that option 1) is actually possible, though it might be. But let's not get bogged down in equivocating over the word 'possible'. See the subtitle I chose!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2009 12:10 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2009 2:43 PM Modulous has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 285 of 304 (506098)
04-22-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Modulous
04-22-2009 1:48 PM


Re: Complication unnecessary
I think you are just using words to mean things differently, but once we extract the communal meanings, we'll find that we agree.
I'm sure we do agree for the most part. But I also think that the distinction between (conceivable) and (possible) is important.
It is possible that an ostrich with a Rhino head could exist,
Is it?
Or is it simply a concept that you are able to hold in your mind?
Let's use a more outlandish example to prove the point:
The comic book character "Wolverine" has the ability to regenerate. In one case, he regenerated from a single cell in a matter of minutes, without any outside input of additional mass or energy, and he retained his memories despite the total annihilation of his brain. He also regenerated non-organic implants, which in later storylines he proved unable to do.
I have subjective evidence that Wolverine exists and is able to perform the feats described above: I read about them in a comic book.
It is conceivable that Wolverine could exist.
Is his existence possible?
Considering that the feats described above both compeltely and utterly violate the laws of physics, contradict everything we know about the brain and memory, and even contradict themselves due to inconsistent writers, it does not seem that Wolverine is a possibility.
But what if none of Wolverine's descriptors were self-contradictory? What if they matched closely to what has been actually observed in objective reality? Then Wolverine would be a possiblity. We would still have no reason to have confidence in his actual existence, but we could at least say "maybe."
With deities (and IPUs), we don't have any information on whether their existence is or is not possible. They are simply concepts. We have not observed any deity, nor do we have even the barest mechanism by which such an entity could perform supernatural feats. Such an entity could, in fact, be impossible, and that determination is independant of the determination of whether or not such an entity actually exists (at least insofar as possibility does not imply existence, though impossibility excludes existence).
This is true of any concept supported by subjective evidence alone - and the fact that subjective evidence causes belief in human beings is evidence of absolutely nothing more than the fact that human beings are not entirely rational.
and you don't need a dream to have that experience. It is easy enough to conceive of an amusing confluence of events which leads someone to actually see what appears to be an ostrich with the head of a rhino.
That's a separate assertion from asserting that an ostrich with a rhino head can actually exist. Hallucination != existence.
What I interpreted RAZD to be saying is that there are a number of possibilities here:
1) The ostrich has the head of a rhino, amazing!
2) It's a strange illusion caused by a peculiar alignment of the two animals and various obfuscating factors.
3) It's an hallucination.
4) etc.
I agree - but this I think is more due to the limitations of the English language. COntextually, the word "possibilities" in your statement means "one of the following must be true." That's correct.
Hoerver, not all of the "possibilities" are necessarily possible, as in they can be self-contradictory or violate one or more of the laws of physics and therefore have no actual potential to actually exist.
Do you see the distinction?
Now, it may turn out that it is impossible for a human to have a hallucination of an ostrich with a rhino head. Maybe our brains simply cannot conjur that image in an hallucinatory fashion.
If that were the case, a rhino-headed ostrich would be "inconceivable." This is independant of the possibility of a rhino-headed ostrich actually existing, which is itself somewhat independant of the actuality of a rhino-headed ostrich existing.
But let's not get bogged down in equivocating over the word 'possible'. See the subtitle I chose!
I think the distinction between "conceivable," "possible," and "actual" is very important to this discussion.
Let's use one of RAZDs previous arguments (alien life) to further illustrate.
It is conceivable that intelligent alien life has visited Earth in faster-than-light spaceships. Considering the laws of physics and what appears to be the impossibility of faster-than-light travel, it is not necessarily possible that intelligent alien life has visited Earth in faster-than-light spaceships. We don't know whether such a thing is possible or not, only tha tit is conceivable (and tentatively contradicted by the laws of physics).
It is demonstrably possible that life can exist (since life exists here); ergo it is possible that life may exist somewhere else in the Universe in some form. This does not mean that life does exist, simply that it exists in the realm of possibility.
It is actually true that life exists here, because we can directly observe it.
Do you see the distinction?
RAZD's deity, along with the IPU, are conceivable but not necessarily possible, meaning we do not have enough information to determine whether they potentially actually exist. Asserting that a deity possibly exists is just as unfounded as asserting that a "gnarlfmag" possibly exists.
Asserting that a possible entity actually exists without supporting observable evidence is bad enough; asserting that a conceivable entity of unknown possibility actually exists constitutes a wild leap in logic. RAZD has no idea whether his deity is a possibility in this Universe, let alone whether it actually exists, and yet he has confidence in the existence of that deity. Despite any nonsense arguments he may propose regarding the causal relationship between subjective evidence and belief, he is still irrationally asserting with no objective reasoning that his undefined entity is both possible and actually exists. Simultaneously, RAZD rejects the existence of other entities whose possibility and actual existence are unknown, and for whom subjective evidence exists even if not directly experienced by him. He's engaged in special pleading on multiple levels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Modulous, posted 04-22-2009 1:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Modulous, posted 04-22-2009 3:06 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2009 11:28 PM Rahvin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024