Scientific Knowledge

Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question. Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?NOTE: I am not remotely suggesting that untestability demands that an atheistic stance be rationally taken for any given proposition. I am asking if untestability acts as a BARRIER to such a stance being taken.If you choose to reply feel free to explain your answer but please do make sure that it is clear as to whether you are in the YES or NO camp.Given your stated 6/7 regarding the "Hogwarts Hypothesis" I fully expect you to be in the NO camp Chuck. Right?

Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question. Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?NOTE: I am not remotely suggesting that untestability demands that an atheistic stance be rationally taken for any given proposition. I am asking if untestability acts as a BARRIER to such a stance being taken.If you choose to reply feel free to explain your answer but please do make sure that it is clear as to whether you are in the YES or NO camp.

Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question. Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?NOTE: I am not remotely suggesting that untestability demands that an atheistic stance be rationally taken for any given proposition. I am asking if untestability acts as a BARRIER to such a stance being taken.If you choose to reply feel free to explain your answer but please do make sure that it is clear as to whether you are in the YES or NO camp.

Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question. Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?NOTE: I am not remotely suggesting that untestability demands that an atheistic stance be rationally taken for any given proposition. I am asking if untestability acts as a BARRIER to such a stance being taken.If you choose to reply feel free to explain your answer but please do make sure that it is clear as to whether you are in the YES or NO camp.

Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question. Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?NOTE: I am not remotely suggesting that untestability demands that an atheistic stance be rationally taken for any given proposition. I am asking if untestability acts as a BARRIER to such a stance being taken.If you choose to reply feel free to explain your answer but please do make sure that it is clear as to whether you are in the YES or NO camp.

Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question. Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?NOTE: I am not remotely suggesting that untestability demands that an atheistic stance be rationally taken for any given proposition. I am asking if untestability acts as a BARRIER to such a stance being taken.If you choose to reply feel free to explain your answer but please do make sure that it is clear as to whether you are in the YES or NO camp.

Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question. Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?NOTE: I am not remotely suggesting that untestability demands that an atheistic stance be rationally taken for any given proposition. I am asking if untestability acts as a BARRIER to such a stance being taken.If you choose to reply feel free to explain your answer but please do make sure that it is clear as to whether you are in the YES or NO camp.RAZ - It would be greatly appreciated if you spared us any repetition of your admittedly impressive array of charts, scales and colourful deductions. Just explicit statements will do more than nicely.

Preclude the stance: "I don't know for certain but I think it is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that it is not there."?
My answer: No - it does not preclude it.I think that if something is untestable then it remains improbable.
Any evidence which could make it more probable doesn't (by definition) exist.To quote Christopher Hitchens:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
I, also, am happy to dismiss concepts which have no evidence.

I am not sure that repeating the question individually is a good idea, but nevertheless.My answer is NO.Anyone who disagrees must accept the "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as a viable possibility, that cannot be rejected. And since nobody seems to accept that, I think that anyone who answers "YES" needs to explain why.A valid reason might be the presence of a better explanation (e.g. J K Rowling made it all up"). Or we might have good reason to consider the thing in question sufficiently unlikely that we might reject at - which is why none of us believes that - by coincidence - J K Rowling got close enough to the truth and Lord Voldemort does exist (even if much of the rest of the Harry Potter books is pure fiction).In fact the matter seems quite settled, with a firm NO all round.

Straggler asks: I can't say all one way or the other.Things like "Hogwart's Hypothesis" or "Last Thursdayism" - these things require that the body of objective scientific evidence would be LYING to us and therefore I'll answer "NO" for those.BUT, consider RAZD's untestable Deist God...I would have to say YES, there is a barrier in that case.Note that the Known Fictional characters, such as Lord Voldemort, Superman, Casper the Ghost and others for which the creation of their character can be evidenced through the author - these concepts are in fact testible, and so they are not encountering such a barrier.I think you need to break up the grouping some.

Hi Strags, Thank you for considering me a "participant of consequence" ... I'd like to thank my mother ... oh wait this isn't an award ... .You realize, of course, that this will drive the number of posts over 300 and that the 300 post limit has been reinstated, yes? That kinda means to me that a summary post will not be long behind.

---

No, it doesn't preclude you from taking whatever "unevidenced," subjective opinion belief position you want to take. There are no real barriers to what you can have for an opinion or a belief. Pick a position according to your personal beliefs and live your life accordingly -- heck we all do that anyway, big whap.Note: I realize that you are NOT saying that a "6" position must be taken categorically on all untestable concepts⁽¹⁾ ... you just want to sneak label the "6" position as rational ... a typical ploy Strags.

---

The major (deadly imho) flaw in the Dawkins scale is that it is subjective. It also tends to be self aggrandizing, imho (look at me, I'm a 6.99999, I'm baaaad ... ) ... Certainly it is not an objective scale, as evidenced by the long drawn out debates on how you can rationally be a 6 rather than a 5 when these positions are not defined objectively.Stretching it out to 9 categories would be silly. Condensing it to 5 may be more appropriate, while condensing it to 3 categories would be unnecessary, these categories (theist, agnostic, atheist) already exist.This is why I have thrown out my modified version in favor of the RAZD\Straggler Concept Confidence Scale⁽²⁾ (which I would normally drop in here, but you asked me not to )

---

Of course, if it is untestable then de facto there is no support for the concept and the true skeptic can only say that it is unsupported, that it is neither proven nor disproven, and that logic, alone and by itself, leaves you in a default agnostic position ...(here I would normally drop in my diagram of the decision choices here,⁽³⁾ but, again, you asked me not to )... but we don't operate on logic alone, and a lot of concepts fall into what I call the {so what :: ignore} category that can safely be ignored - hypothetical concepts that children develop for instance. Is it rational to lump ALL untestable concepts based solely on the (categorical) criteria that they are untestable and then ignore them as a category?When true skeptic says that untestable concepts are unsupported, and not proven, does that mean that any adjustment to the way you live your life is necessary, or that anyone must decide it is false before they can do so?When true skeptic says that untestable concepts are unsupported, and not disproven, does that mean that any adjustment to the way you live your life is necessary, or that anyone must decide it is true before they can do so?In other words can we not rationally and safely ignore untestable concepts in the way we live our lives, without having to consider them true or false first?When I look at the RAZD/Straggler Concept Confidence Scale I do not see how untestable concepts can be anything but Zero Confidence Concepts, do you? Nor do I see any need to adjust the way I live my life because of any Zero Confidence Concepts.So I'm going to ask you some "open-minded skeptic" questions in return:

1. Using the RAZD/Straggler Concept Confidence Scale⁽²⁾, can the fact that a given proposition is an untestable concept, rationally result in any other position than the de facto skeptic's stance that it is a zero confidence concept?
2. Does untestability rationally act as a BARRIER to such a confidence stance being taken?
3. Does untestability rationally act as a BARRIER to having a higher confidence stance taken?
4. Can an untestable concept rationally and safely be ignored in the way you live your life?
5. Does this give you more useful information than the Dawkins Scale?

---

I would still like to work with you on refining them so that YOU feel they are useful. Certainly if the two of us cannot agree on something as simple as an objective scale for evaluating concepts then there really is little hope for agreement on anything else eh?If I start a thread on just that issue will you help?Enjoy

---

Notes:
⁽¹⁾ - such as "no gods exist" for example
⁽²⁾ - which you can find at Message 51
⁽³⁾ - which you can find at Message 264Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty, proper link

And then use the answer in the future against us when necessary? Dang yer good dude. I gotta come up with some questions to bank for myself. RAZD, any suggestions? No, it doesn't. It doesn't rule that out. I think it's more rational tho, to believe in Christ that Lord V. Im a #7 concerning V and #1 on Christ.There are some things that will never need to be tested so who cares. For example, Lord V. No one is trying to come up with ways to test the "hogwarts hypothesis" right now I don't think. It's silly right? So is the talking snake you say? Dam you God Bless you Straggler...So it's ok to be a 6 or 7 on the (old?) Dawkins scale with regards to that. A contradiction? Possibly. A barrier? Geez, now im gonna go off the board here. I assume you mean untestable in Science? Because you can test things in the spiritual:Sorry man. I had to do it. Im already am a #1 on the (old?) scale concerning God and for me im pretty much a #7 concerning all other gods BUT, am also a #1 concerning Jesus(God the Son), The Holy Spirit(God the Holy Spirit), angles, satan, demons. None of which can be tested.I personally DO NOT think you can call me delusional concerning those things simply becuase they ARE NOT testable. What do you think?Now, if I say that im a #1 on the scale concerning the worldwide flood then you can call me delusional because of the "evidence" that says otherwise. (im not convinced at all that it didn't happen btw and could possibly be a #1 but that is between me and you. There is a theory out there called " the hydroplate theory". Maybe a new thread? )Do you see my point? How appropriate is it to call me delusional about something that can't be tested as opposed to something that CAN be? Yep, that's right Stragg, depending on the proposition of course.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Good. So we both agree that in future any talk of Ben Franklin in a field without a means to test for electricity blah blah blah is of no real consequence. Untestability/unfalsifiability in and of itself is NOT the deciding factor. Well neither the Hogwarts Hypothesis nor the existence of Immaterial Pink Unicorn are remotely testable but I would suggest (and I think you would agree) that anything other than strong skepticism towards these propositions would be severely misplaced. Of course. But we'll have no more of this insidious notion that unfalsifiability/untestability is the deciding factor.

So some are precluded merely by being unfalsifiable and others are not. Typical.Is the untestable/unfalsifiable nature of the Immaterial Pink Unicorn a barrier to atheistic (6 on scale) rejection? Does the proposed existence of the IPU "require that the body of objective scientific evidence would be LYING to us".....?Try again Xongsmith. I think you need to decide whether unfalsifiability/untestability alone is a barrier to taking an atheistic stance towards any given proposition.I think you need to go away and think about what that actually means.