quote:
Well, RAZD and Straggler have a difference scale. RAZD isn't interested in the Dawkins scale so we'll use theirs.
He is interested enough to repeatedly post his own version, and to make a lot of claims about it. And it is the scale you were using. So why switch?
Oh, and the reason he "needs" to keep repeating his position on the other scale seems to be that he doesn't want to admit his position on his modified Dawkins scale.
Nope. RAZD is a #7 here, in regards to Lord V being a real SN being.
Also, RAZD would be a #1 here, regarding Lord V being a fictional character.
As well as me.
Without sufficient supporting or contradicting evidence:
Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty(a)
Strong acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty(a)
Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncerrtain(b)
Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty(a)
(a) - logically invalid positions (unless supported by substantiating tested objective empirical evidence - strong conviction in the validity of evolution is based on the massive amount of objective evidence and testing). (b) - logically valid positions (if not contradicted by tested objective empirical evidence - continued belief in a falsified concept is delusion).
Nope. RAZD is a #7 here, in regards to Lord V being a real SN being.
quote:7. Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty(a)
(a) - logically invalid positions (unless supported by substantiating tested objective empirical evidence - strong conviction in the validity of evolution is based on the massive amount of objective evidence and testing).
Which would be fine, but the "Hogwort's hypothesis" is untestable. So how is there "substantiating tested objective empirical evidence" of an untestable proposition?
But let's avoid guessing what RAZD thinks. Instead, let's see what he says:
bluegenes writes:
... but you'd probably treat [the claim that there is an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom] as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, ...
RAZD writes:
Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in.
So - RAZD's positon in regards to the hypothetical scenario "Hogwort's hypothesis" would not be a 6 (or a 7). He would be agnostic about it. It is not disproved or proved.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
Straggler still digs in his heels and still refuses to look the actual replies
Straggler fails to see what is in front of him.
He replies to all the posts but one ... Message 237
Why is that?
Message 237: See Message 231 for your answer to this and to Message 232: failure to read a response does not mean it was not made. Failure to understand it may be a different issue.
Curious that a link to an actual answer is ignored and not followed. Of course if he did then he couldn't still stomp around looking foolish for not reading previous posts.
Or it really is due to his inability to understand the response ... which can be due to several reasons.
I am trying to find a baseline of agreement on your terms, on your scales (whichever one it is you are currently advocating)
Obviously this isn't going to be possible if you point blank refuse to explicitly reference your answer to your scale.
Curiously, I have answered this in Message 205 and this was also noted in Message 206 and I have summarized my answer in Message 220 and again in Message 224 that you have responded to here.
The answer was in THREE MESSAGES ALREADY? Including the message he replied to ... but he DIDN'T READ IT??? is this honest debate or trolling?
Message 224: Because of the strong evidence I have previously cited for the whole set of books and the characters in them to be considered fantasy fiction as a fact, and given the absence of any contradictory evidence to this, I can safely take a (+4) stance on the concept that the books are indeed fantasy fiction novels and that the characters are fictions. I consider this a fact, and have said so.
Next comes the blinking messages to see if THAT gets through the cognitive blindness, so if anyone that CAN read these posts don't want to see the blinking, TELL STRAGGLER HE HAS AN ANSWER and stop trolling.
Re: Straggler still digs in his heels and still refuses to look the actual replies
You aren't going to explicitly place yourself on your own scale with regard to the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" are you?
You aren't going to confront the fact that defining anything at all such that it is unfalsifiable makes de-facto atheistic rejection of it "logically invalid" and "pseudoskpetical" on your morass of scales, logical exercises and whatnot.
Instead you will continue to convince yourself that you are relentlessly right by only applying your little scales and logical exercises to those things which will provide you the answer you have already decided upon anyway and refusing to apply the same process to anything which doesn't give the desired result.
RAZD evasively writes:
Because of the strong evidence I have previously cited for the whole set of books and the characters in them to be considered fantasy fiction as a fact, and given the absence of any contradictory evidence to this, I can safely take a (+4) stance on the concept that the books are indeed fantasy fiction novels and that the characters are fictions. I consider this a fact, and have said so.
RAZD onetime scale being referred to writes:
+4 = Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty
Is this the same as saying that you know with absolute certainty that the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" is untrue? If it is then it means you think evidence of something being made-up somehow proves that it doesn't exist. Now that really is logically invalid and pseudoskeptical.
Have fun convincing yourself of the veracity of your own arguments by only applying your arguments to examples that give the result you want.
Re: Straggler still digs in his heels and still refuses to look the actual replies
Zen Deist writes:
Next comes the blinking messages...
The <blink> tag doesn't work in all browers, for instance, it isn't supported by Internet Explorer, Chrome or Safari. Neither is the "blink" modifier to the CSS text-decoration attribute.
A graduate assistant for one of my college courses would, if you didn't understand an explanation, repeat it in a louder voice. If was a very effective method for discouraging questions.
Re: Straggler still digs in his heels and still refuses to look the actual replies
Straggler writes:
You aren't going to explicitly place yourself on your own scale with regard to the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" are you?
It is like you have asked RAZD if he likes cheese and in reply he shouts "I LIKE JAM!!!". Clearly RAZD realises that he can't allow himself to actually answer your question.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
This would give us the following for revision 1 of the scale:
(a) - using the scientific definition of "fact" with scientific tentativity included.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that - on the initial face of it - the "killer bogeyman" is a "No Confidence Concept"?
Please note that I have added "with me" to be clear on where I stand -- even though this should NOT be necessary. I will also consider this inserted on previous questions on AGREEMENT if clarification is necessary.
0. No Confidence Concepts
No evidence, or the evidence is contradictory(3), conjecture involved, hypothetical arguments,
No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
To test that the concept is real, vs an intentional fiction created by bluegenes, we would first need evidence that it were possible -- the true skeptic says that a position is not supported, rather than it is false.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that - on the initial face of it - the fact that "someone" would have to be in contact (via "special psychic powers") with such a supernatural being and that they would need to be a Dawkins (1) on this matter, and ...
... do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that - on the initial face of it - that there is no evidence of this, either from bluegenes or from any other source?
So there is no verification that such a person exists, to say nothing of the killer bogeyman concept being a real experience for such a person, or that they communicated with bluegenes.
We can also compare this concept to other known concepts of supernatural beings and see if there is any similar concepts involved in those beliefs, and whether there have been any reported deaths as a result. As far as I know, there is no objective evidence of this occurring.
This leads to the conclusion that it is possibly a hypothetical fiction by bluegenes.
The concept of the killer bogeyman being real vs being a fiction is not supported.
Can it be tested?
Yes, in a rather limited way: the fact that I have survived every successive night asleep in my bed would be falsification of the specific claim of a one week duration.
This may be limited testing and subjective evidence, but it IS contradictory evidence to the concept of the killer bogeyman being real vs being a fiction.
Now we look at the table of relative reality:
2. when there is more contradicting evidence and less confirming evidence, there is even lesser possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that there is zero evidence to substantiate that this is true?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that there IS some evidence to substantiate that this is fiction?
Thus we have more confidence that this is a hypothetical conjecture by bluegenes.
Now we return to the RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale (rev 1 proposed version) with this information, and see that (for the concept that "this is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real"), we can go to:
I. Low Confidence Concepts
Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, untested and possibly untestable, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that "it is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real" is a "Low Confidence Concept"?
Then we check to see if it is possible to go to the next level:
II. Medium Confidence Concepts
Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, known to be testable or testable in theory, a scientific hypothesis where testing is incomplete, or that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or that is still in development,
Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made tentatively, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.
We have some tentative evidence, but it is not validated or confirmed (you don't know if I slept somewhere else for instance). Thus this criteria is marginal at best.
Is the concept testable? Not in any practical way without some means to determine supernatural presence, as far as I know.
We could try to get a subpoena to investigate bluegenes' computer to see where the initial concept came from, but on what grounds? death threats? hardly practical, imho.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that "it is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real" is NOT a "Medium Confidence Concept"?
If we want to (for some silly reason) compare this to the Dawkins Scale ...
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that this would be a (3) on the Dawkins Scale?
Or do you think it would be a (2)? Why?
Note that if we attempt to use the Dawkins Scale on concepts that we accept with a high degree of confidence that they reflect reality that (1) cannot properly apply, so concepts like the theory of evolution could not be more than a (2). As a result I cannot see the concept of "it is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real" being a (2), as it has nowhere near the same level of confidence.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that this would NOT be a (2) on the Dawkins Scale?
Finally, if bluegenes admits that it is an intentional fiction, we do not need any more evidence, investigation or testing, and can safely conclude that the concept (that "an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real") is a fact, as much of a fact that the fantasy stories and characters of Rowland are fiction, and that this would be an Extreme Confidence Concept:
IV. Extreme Confidence Concepts
Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven(4) to be true.
It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact(a).
Here is an example of why we may want to refine this, per (4) to say:
IV. Extreme Confidence Concepts
Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven or admitted(4) to be true.
It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact(a).
If a person admits that "yes, I killed Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Pipe" and there is no evidence that contradicts that, plus some circumstantial evidence that confirms it, would this not be an Extreme Confidence Concept?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that an admission that this was an "intentional fiction created by bluegenes" would make it an Extreme Confidence Concept?
Is the bogeyman in the blue zone?
To spell it out for you: yes, this concept does not contradict the assumption that the evidence we see around us is a reflection of reality.
We also see that it is consistent with fictional creations, rather than any known supernatural concepts.
We also see that the reality of the concept is untestable.
And, as BLUE zone concepts don't necessarily need to be testable ...
... The "killer bogeyman" concept qualifies as an untestable BLUE zone concept.
We also see that there is more reason to believe it is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes than a real concept, and that we can have enough confidence in that position to form an opinion that it is an intentional fiction.
And we can live our lives secure in the knowledge that we have made the best evaluation and judgment possible from the available evidence.
In case you are still wondering, my "Dawkins" position was a (5) on the "killer bogeyman" being real issue, and I live my life secure in the knowledge that I have made the best evaluation and judgment possible from the available evidence.
Certainly I live with the possibility of death every day and night, and a meager hypothetical conjecture like this is not sufficient to alter my behavior or beliefs.
Hypotheticals belong in the {SO WHAT} category of concepts, and that's a BIG bucket, and they can all be safely ignored in everyday life.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that we can ignore hypothetical concepts in everyday life?
Just because a concept is in the BLUE zone does NOT mean that we have to accept it as valid or testable or even that it is based on reality, just that it is based on the assumption that objective evidence reflects and represents reality.
This should be obvious. Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me on this, so far?
This is long enough, so I'll end it here.
Enjoy Notes: (1) - proposed changes are:
should we change the top level to IV. Extreme Confidence Concept, to include a touch of scientific tentativity, and then be able to include scientific laws in this category?
should we change IV. Absolute Extreme Confidence Concepts to read
Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven(4) to be true. (as opposed to "Proven")
It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact. (as opposed to "The truth is known")
should we say that:
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
High Confidence Concepts - are empirically tested
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE (with me) with these changes? Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE (with me) that this is more universally applicable than the Dawkins Scale?
(2) - incorporates changes proposed in (1) above, changes not yet accepted by Straggler (3) - problem here with "evidence is contradictory" being understood as contrary to the concept rather than to other evidence, so this should be changed to "evidence is inconclusive or self contradictory" or "pro & con evidence is contradictory" -- what do you think? (4) - here we may want to say "proven or admitted to be true" to include statements made by people rather than investigated concepts.
quote:- I am a 6 on the scale. (probably a 7 tho being that he is a known documented fictional character)
- RAZD is a 6 (possibly a 7 being that he is a known documented fictional character)
Excellent prediction.
As I have said I am a (1) on the books being fantasy fiction and the characters are fiction, based on the evidence that Rowland admits they are fiction as a known fact.
Rowland does not need to prove that they are not fiction: if she says they are fiction then it is highly rational to accept that they are fiction and that "any similarity to reality is purely coincidental and unintended" or similar provision usually used by fiction writers to avoid lawsuits. They were most certainly written as fiction and thus they ARE fiction for all intents and purposes. Certainly as close to fact as we get in science.
Now we look at Stragglers comments on the concept scale and his suggested modification:
Message 144: Where we have a known truth or high confidence concept where "conclusions regarding probable reality can be made" we are also able to make equally conclusive conclusions regarding mutually exclusive alternatives.
Message 146: It is based on the principle of contradiction and is detailed in my post above subtitled 'Probables And The Corresponding Improbables'.
Essentially it says that where something is legitimately deemed "probable" the law of contradiction stipulates that mutually exclusive alternatives must correspondingly be deemed "improbable".
Call it 'Straggler's amendment'.
I agreed, and happily incorporated this into the Concept Scale:
Message 151: ... I see no major issue here. The minor quibble I have is the language: I don't feel the terminology of "mutually exclusive alternatives" is accurate -- it implies a dichotomy that isn't necessarily applicable or necessary to imply. I would say
This table shows how we can have different levels of positive confidence in concepts. We are also able to have equally negative confidence regarding inverse or alternative concepts that are contradicted by the same information and evidence.
That could be a footnote to the table and apply to each of the levels of confidence, yes?
Thus a (+4) that they are fiction translates to a (-4)(1) that they are real: otherwise one contradicts the other.
This is ALSO born out by my analysis of my belief scale logic that the value for {X} should be as valid as the value for not{X}, because any concept can be stated as an inversion.
This is ALSO why the form of the positions is invalid for 1, 2, 6 and 7 and this means there is no valid reason to accept those positions without evidence that they are valid - as you essentially agree, though with slightly different wording.
Amusingly, Straggler does not apply his own provision to any followup discussion/s and appears blind to what I have said.
Further, according to RAZD anybody who takes a position of 1,2,6 or 7 in the absence of empirical evidence must take the same position on everything which is not supported or contradicted by physical evidence. ...
Amusingly that is more like something bluegenes and Straggler have claimed, and is NOT what I have said.
Can you, or anyone, logically claim that an invalid argument applied once, must then be applied in perpetuum?
Curiously, I don't believe I made any such statement -- can you cite an example?
... Thus if he takes a position of 6 on Lord Voldemort he must also take a position of 6 with regard to the unfalsifiable supernatural entities he uses in his own examples. Which puts him firmly with those he calls "pseudoskeptics" - or worse since he refuses to accept the reasoning that they employ to support their views.
Which falls as flat as similar claims by bluegenes and Straggler when you look at my ACTUAL position/s rather than a straw man version.
Quote, Cite, and you avoid mistakes.
If in doubt paraphrase and ask ME if it is correct.
As I have said I am a (1) on the books being fantasy fiction and the characters are fiction, based on the evidence that Rowland admits they are fiction.
With the "Straggler Amendment" this translates to a (7) that they are real.
This does not in any way confine me to taking a (1) or a (7) on the next concept, rather it confines me to look at the evidence and judge what that shows.
So, to be true to his own arguments he cannot take position 6 with regard to Lord Voldemort. In fact he must hold that it is reasonable to take position 3, even if he himself is a 5.
So do you see where you went wrong here?
Enjoy Notes: (1) - not (0) Chuck77, sorry. Otherwise good job.
Re: Red Zone Untestable Concept vs Blue Zone Tested Concepts
You felt it necessary to go through all that before finally reaching a conclusion of "Weak skepticism" rather than pseudoskeptical "Strong skepticism" towards an undetectable killer bogeyman in your bedroom? Christ.
Any proposition defined as being completely undetectable and unknowable is necessarily sourced from the internal workings of creative minds. How could it be otherwise? And if it is necessarily sourced from imagination it is no more likely to be true than any other random act of pure imagination. I.e. very unlikely. This is as true for the bogeyman as it is the Hogwarts Hypothesis as it is for Last Thursdayism as it is for the one second universe as it is for the Immaterial Pink Unicorn as it is for the Hindu Hypothesis as it is for ethereal salamander powered lightbulbs as it is for any concept of God who lives outside the universe and has no physical interaction with this one etc. etc.
You could save yourself a lot of pointless analysis and posturing about a-priori assumptions by just accepting this very simple and obvious fact.
ZD writes:
To test that the concept is real, vs an intentional fiction created by bluegenes, we would first need evidence that it were possible
And the evidence which tells us that the existence of supernatural entities is a possibility is........? What exactly?
Aside from human belief (argumentum popularium) what else is there?
As I have said I am a (1) on the books being fantasy fiction and the characters are fiction, based on the evidence that Rowland admits they are fiction.
OK. But how does that help you dismiss the untestable Hogwarts Hypothesis?
The Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition - Dumbledore magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable.
Without sufficient supporting or contradicting evidence:
Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty(a)
Strong acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty(a)
Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncerrtain(b)
Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty(a)
If you are a 1 regarding the fictionality of the Harry Potter books are you claiming a pseudoskeptical 7 with regard to the untestable Hogwarts Hypothesis?
That would make you even more of a pseudoskeptic than you accuse the rest of us of being.....
quote:
Amusingly that is more like something bluegenes and Straggler have claimed, and is NOT what I have said.
I don't think that it is like anything either bluegenes or Straggler has claimed.
quote:
Curiously, I don't believe I made any such statement -- can you cite an example?
Of course. It is a central assumption of your argument that positions. 1,2,6 and 7 on your modified Dawkins scale are "logically invalid". Message 131
There, for instance, you equate position 2 to the claim:
any Y with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false
quote:
Which falls as flat as similar claims by bluegenes and Straggler when you look at my ACTUAL position/s rather than a straw man version.
Quote, Cite, and you avoid mistakes.
Unfortunately, the straw man is all yours.
quote:
As I have said I am a (1) on the books being fantasy fiction and the characters are fiction, based on the evidence that Rowland admits they are fiction.
Which requires you to absolutely reject unfalsifiable arguments to the contrary.
However, this does not entail that Lord Voldemort does not exist. As I have already argued, it is only because Lord Voldemort is very unlikely to exist independent of Rowling's fiction that you can take the position that he does not exist with any degree of certainty.
quote:
This does not in any way confine me to taking a (1) or a (7) on the next concept, rather it confines me to look at the evidence and judge what that shows.
But you have NOT looked at any evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist. You have come to the decision without any evidence of that whatsoever. So much for the "open-minded skeptic"!
Thus, either it is legitimate to take a position of absolute disbelief without either direct empirical evidence or logically valid argument - and your arguments to the contrary are in error, or you have gone against your own principles in doing so. Which is it ?
the light slowly seeps into the tightly shut eyes ...
Hi Straggles, still struggling?
You aren't going to explicitly place yourself on your own scale with regard to the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" are you?
Amusingly wrong. I already did this. You just failed to read it. Or understand it ...
You aren't going to confront the fact that defining anything at all such that it is unfalsifiable makes de-facto atheistic rejection of it "logically invalid" and "pseudoskpetical" on your morass of scales, logical exercises and whatnot.
You still do not understand pseudoskepticism, nor my position.
That's YOUR kind of inverted logic not mine. I do not define things as unfalsifiable in order to avoid conclusions, I look at the evidence that shows whether or not they are unfalsifiable and then see what we can and cannot conclude about them. You have it backwards. As usual.
Certainly your automatic knee-jerk rejection of something because it is unfalsifiable (or untestable ... or just undesirable?) IS logically invalid -- no matter how much you want to believe you are justified in doing so.
For example: the assumption that the objective evidence reflects and represents reality is an unfalsifiable and untestable concept.
Amusingly, I do not reject this concept out of hand, nor do I "define" it as unfalsifiable or untestable in order to avoid taking a 6 (or 7) position on this concept. Curiously, I would love to be able to take a 1 or 2 position on this, but I haven't seen the evidence to justify that.
Instead I take a 3, 4 or 5 position on untestable and unfalsifiable (depending on my personal opinion of the concept in question) BECAUSE they are untestable or unfalsifiable and there is insufficient evidence to conclude anything else: because that is the most one can logically derive from the evidence (or, more accurately, the absence of evidence).
NOTE how this invalidates your straw man. Again.
NOTE FURTHER that this does seem to pose a problem for you: if you are going to claim that any or all unfalsifiable or untestable concepts must be rejected out of hand, with an atheistic (6) or (7) position, then you must logically "atheistically" reject the foundation of science with a (6) or (7) position as well.
AND FURTHER, that if you are next going to claim that you can reject for some and not for others, then you are cherry picking your concepts, using confirmation bias, and special pleading to justify some and not all.
So, Straggler, do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that you cannot apply 1, 2, 6 or 7 positions to any unfalsifiable or untestable concepts on the Dawkins Scale (or my version of it, no matter) and that the only logical positions are 3, 4 or 5?
OR if you want to use the concept scale ...
... do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that you cannot apply +3 or higher level confidence or -3 or lower level confidence to any unfalsifiable or untestable concepts on the RAZD/Straggler Concept Scale (rev 0 or proposed rev 1 version, no matter) and that the only logical positions are -1, 0 or +1?
quote:Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) refers to arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. ... involves negative hypotheses — theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong — without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.
Characteristics of pseudoskeptics:
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
Double standards in the application of criticism
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim
In contrast to pseudoskepticism the true skepticism is characterized as:
doubt rather than denial; nonbelief rather than belief
an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.
Maintains that science need not incorporate every extraordinary claim as a new fact.
As a result, has no burden to prove anything.
Discovering an opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing. It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was air tight against error, but it does not disprove the anomaly claim.
Instead you will continue to convince yourself that you are relentlessly right by only applying your little scales and logical exercises to those things which will provide you the answer you have already decided upon anyway and refusing to apply the same process to anything which doesn't give the desired result.
No, Straggles, you have it backwards, again. I develop and refine them to show why I am right, to make it clearer to the more myopic or dense readers what my actual positions are and the logic and rational behind them.
You complain of the changes, just as creationists complain about changes in science. In both cases we do not have wholesale revision, rather we have refinement and increased clarity.
This is why I ask for and appreciate your input on refining these scales and diagrams, and would like that process to continue.
RAZD onetime scale being referred to writes:
+4 = Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty
Is this the same as saying that you know with absolute certainty that the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" is untrue?
With the dishonesty I have come to expect from you, you have switched the scales to one that applied to Dawkins like subjective evaluations from the RAZD/Staggler Concept Scale:
quote:
The astute reader will realize that I specifically referred to the above scale, rather than what Straggles shows.
People that have followed this discussion will KNOW that the last paragraph was suggested by Straggler, and I was happy to add it as a further refinement of the scale and how we can apply it.
Is this the same as saying that you know with absolute certainty that the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" is untrue?
It is saying that the concept that the characters are real - or any concept that would rely on them being real - is a (-4) confidence concept --- by your own inversion\contradiction amendment.
Have fun convincing yourself of the veracity of your own arguments by only applying your arguments to examples that give the result you want.
Have fun running away from the reality of actual replies with actual answers that actually provide the information you ask for while you try to hide behind lies and misinformation.
What prevents you from agreeing with me on even the smallest detail, or working with me towards agreement?
Now I am going out to enjoy the evening with friends, so read with care and don't get to hyper on posting silly claims and false things until I return.
There is only one assumption I am willing to concede at this point: substantiated objective scientific evidence is actually telling us about the real world and not LYING. Without this assumption, all science is virtually worthless.
Do you disagree? Yes No
Perhaps you could provide the evidence that Lord Valdemort is fictional?
I would merely point out, as has already been done, that J.K.Rowling wrote the books & characters. You could do this, too. Or do you doubt that she wrote the books?
We have all seen other evidence of this as well on the various news media around the world. Admittedly there has not been a publication in a respected scientific journal addressing this specific issue yet, but, somehow, by concept inheritance, this has already been demonstrated for works of fiction in the past and the research time & money would be better spent elsewhere. Those with even more hands-on experience to the actual scene would even have more to add, supplying tons of additional objective evidence. I would argue that Zen Deist has indeed supplied more than enough pointers towards substantiatable objective evidence on this matter. Are you trying to be obtuse & stubborn?
If you doubt that her characters are fictional, please let me know what you think they are.
You are correct about populism being irrelevant. However, if, after some 450 millions of people have encountered J.K.Rowling's fictional concepts and NOT ONE of them has objected or countered with evidence that any of these supernatural characters & abilities she writes about are actually real, then, far from being argumentum ad populum, this is similar to the absence of evidence argument used to support the conclusions that supernatural beings don't exist. That is all it is, nothing more than support. The documentation of her creating fictions is the hard evidence.
Perhaps you entertain the notion that Straggler's "Hogwart Hypothesis" could be true? Where are YOU on the scale? Sounds like you are taking a 4 or a 5 with your words, although I am sure you also are a 6+. I accept the fictional explanation of these horrible novels unleashed upon the gullible public based on the body of evidence seen around the world, and can also cite ZD's evidence in Message 224 and who knows what else on this to take a solid 6+ (not Chuck77's 7 estimate for Zen Deist). This is not a pseudoskeptical position.
Incorrectly interpreting reality is not lying. If a detective sees a man holding a smoking gun and assumes he fired it: the data is not lying. The detective is simply wrong.
You are assigning an intelligence/intent which is not present in LastThursdayism. Back in it goes!
But in this case, the body of objective evidence placing the Age of the Earth at somewhere over 4 billion years is the best evidence we have. This isn't a single smoking gun incident, this is a litany - a deluge! - of corroborating evidence from many different fields of scientific endeavor. Last Thursdayism would require that all this evidence is a LIE, regardless of your opinion of intelligence or intent (I admit to being sloppy there). Back out it goes, you silly bear.
'Shove off on to another table'? So: your way to deal with it is to place it 'out of sight'?
Dammit, I'll get to Table 3 when you guys quit clawing away at me and dragging me down with stupid wastes of time on Tables 1 and 2. It is you & Straggler who are keeping Table 3 out of everyone else's sight by these silly misdirections and sideshows. I can assure you, Table 3 is not out of my sight! How do they say it? "Keep your eyes on the prize"?
Please try again, Xongsmith.
Silly silly bear...read closer. I have nothing to hide here (although I am not prepared to say that yet about Zen Deist, me own brother, when it comes to maybe a couple of things he has held back as personal - they would be off topic anyway).
Can't we all just move on to Table 3? That's where the rubber hits the road.
So, by my count, we have at least 3 different kinds of things here:
1. known fictional creations, which are off topic.
2. concepts that would require a universe that LIES to us, which should be off topic.
3. the other stuff shoved off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means. I can't sweep all of these kinds away with the single word "ridiculous" until I have seen them. These may break up into subcategories someday later by some EvC folks yet to be determined, such as those things which are constructed to make ZERO difference to the observed universe. Some can be ignored by parsimony, much in the manner of dismissing a rotating coordinate system that would fix the Earth motionless at the center of the universe. Most of them are probably "ridiculous". But all? Hmmm. Not sure.
We should get away from 1. and 2. They should be ruled off topic. It's 3. that remains the issue.
Table 1, known fictional characters, and Table 2, the universe is lying, are like PRATTs that are being brought back & back & back again! You guys are coming off like those dastardly Creationists!!
Look back at this:
Again: you can't argue against the claim so you 'hide' the evidence.
Are you thinking I'm arguing against Straggler's claim or bluegenes' claim? Which claim? Put the claim in a quotebox, please, but.... Anyway, it doesn't matter - it's the next part that sentence of that reveals your mistake. Who the hell is hiding evidence! Maybe you wish I was doing that or ZD was doing that, because then you could indeed have something to attack. But that aint what's happenin' pal. Nobody is HIDING any evidence. If you disagree, CITE with link & quotebox! On the contrary, whenever I find it, I put it out there. ZD does this too, in his own way, buried within the plethora of flashing boxes. Why do you think it's necessary to find some kind of stick of straw to poke an attack? You 2 guys seem to be in a panicked state. Remember, I'm disgruntledly on your side, even if ZD might not be. However, if there is one thing we all have in common, it's that we have all been doing the best we can to be consistent.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
