|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Knowledge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Strags,
Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question. 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.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? 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:
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. 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? EnjoyNotes: (1) - such as "no gods exist" for example (2) - which you can find at Message 51 (3) - which you can find at Message 264 Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty, proper linkby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Jeez Strags, you are so determined to make volcanic mountains out of antsyhills.
FFS RAZ you are utterly impossible. We still don't have an explicit answer to the question asked. Forget ANY Goddam scales for one cotton pickin minute. Curiously, you already have (and you have already replied previously to) Message 296:
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? 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. NO, IT DOESN"T PRECLUDE (you from taking a "6" position)
THERE ARE NO BARRIERS (to taking a "6" position) Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need large blinking letters? Color in the original for emphasis, bold added for further emphasis: you wanted a yes or a no, and I do not see any way this can be ignored as a NO ... except possibly due to cognitive dissonance? To use Panda's misrepresentation analogy correctly: Straggler: Is there any reason not to like this cheese?RAZD: No, there is no reason not to like that cheese, what cheese you like is a subjective decision, there are no barriers to you (or anyone) choosing what kind of cheese you like. You like Cheddar and I like Stilton. Big whap. Now, please note, I have added to my reply by edit earlier this morning (the original reply being made during a bout of insomnia, not a best time to post, but not much else to do) to be even more clear, so there are some changes but NOT to the yellow statement above NOR to the overall intent of the reply. This was done before I saw your or anyone else's replies (and thus was not influenced by them). RAZD writes: 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 by itself leaves you in a default agnostic position. I can only conclude that this is a YES. ... Your approach is just dishonest RAZ. Then you are, once again, making the wrong conclusion, because this does not change nor qualify the statement in yellow in any way. You leap to conclusions all the time, and most of the time they are wrong, and this is just another example. What you have quoted here is the opening statement in a discussion of what conclusions a person can hypothetically reach as a true skeptic, as described by Truzzi, and you are not reading what I say AFTER that, but leap all over the place in another apoplectic fit and conclude something that is dishonest. Your question was NOT what position →I (RAZD)← would take, nor what position YOU (or anyone) would HAVE to take, but what you (or anyone) could theoretically, hypothetically take ... (without committing yourself to actually taking it categorically, which would of course be silly). If someone happens to choose any other ranking, then that does not contradict the ranking you (or anyone) could theoretically, hypothetically take in any way. They could take a 1 or a 7, and again, big whap. Now, IF your question is really whether your position of taking a subjective "6" position is rational (and not whether you can take a subjective scale "6" on hypothetical concepts that are untestable), then you should not play word games like hide-the-verbal-pea -- as that is a dishonest ploy, and a logical fallacy called the "Complex Question" fallacy(1): was I supposed to be tricked into a different conclusion by this deception? You do this constantly. That question of rationality is properly treated independently of the question of untested concepts. You certainly have not shown or supported any contention that taking a subjective "6" position without having any substantial evidence to support the conclusion is rational. Plugging that in to a question on taking a subjective "6" position on untested concepts would be you assuming (or begging the question) that any subjective (6) position without supporting evidence can be rational, again a typical approach of yours. Can you show me how a (D) conclusion below can be rationally derived?
Now I believe that we can agree that an (A) conclusion is a logically derived position, that a (B) conclusion is not a logically derived position but a practical one under adverse conditions, and that a (C) conclusion is not an irrational position (whether you agree with the position or not), but what can be said about a (D) conclusion? Let me know eh? Do you agree that taking a (6) position on untestable concepts is a (D) conclusion? If not, then what conclusion category is it?
That you do consider an atheistic stance towards the Hogwarts Hypothesis irrational and logically invalid even if you are willing to take a 6.9999 stance yourself ... No Strags, that's you leaping tall buildings to reach false conclusions. Curiously, it seems that I need to repeat myself, again: I consider a skeptical stance of 1 (or 1.0001 if you will :rolleyes at slicing the pea) to the fantasy stories and characters are and were intended to be fictional, substantially supported by substantial evidence of them being acknowledged by the author to be such, and from being treated by every reader know (some 450 million plus readers) as pure fiction. This is NOT an unsupported position, do you not agree? Would you not agree that this is as close as we can get to concluding that this is a FACT beyond any reasonable doubt? Now I consider that the available evidence is all positive evidence for the concept that these books & characters are in actuality fictional: that is what the evidence at hand supports, and thus that is the appropriate concept to rank. And I agree that the positive ranking for this specific concept inverts to a negative ranking for any concept contradicted by this specific concept, and this same evidence supports those inverse concepts being contradicted. But these are secondary rankings, derived from the specific concept ranking, rather than directly from the evidence, and thus they are not primary ranked concepts. Do you agree? Contradicting a contrary concept does not prove a concept is valid (disproving evolution would not prove creationism), and thus extreme care needs to be taken on what concept is, and what concept is not, appropriate to give the primary ranking here (proving creationism true would invalidate large chunks of evolution theory). Now if you consider your own principle of inversion (of positive rating for a concept to also be an equivalent negative rating for any concept contradicted by the original concept) means the inverse rating is not supported by the same substantial evidence, then you would seem to have a problem with your own principle, yes?
If we can't agree that the Hogwarts Hypothesis can be rationally rejected no mater how untestable it might be then I just have no faith at all in your sanity/honesty and have nothing more to say to you. If your are NOW asking me what MY position would be on this specific concept, rather than what YOUR hypothetical stance could theoretically, hypothetically be on any hypothetical untestable concept, then that is a NEW question that you should ask and not assume. This answer has already been given, and my reason for approaching it the way I have, is now more fully clarified. If you still have trouble understanding this, then ask again. Perhaps we should have this discussion in relation to refining the RAZD\Straggler Concept Confidence Scale, yes? We can then explore the details at that time eh? The real question posed by you here, was whether or not the untestable concept can be placed in a (6) category so you can then reject it in order to ignore it. You seem to feel that you first need to classify it in order, and then reject it, before you can ignore it, while I don't. If a concept is untestable, and therefore is necessarily not supported by any conclusive valid evidence, then I can rationally arrive at a (C) conclusion, and ignore the concept, and live my life secure in the knowledge that I have made the best evaluation and judgment possible from the available evidence. However, if you feel that you must reach a decision, then you are putting yourself in the (B) conclusion category, and I wonder what makes you feel you need to make a decision. Enjoy Notes: (1) - Complex Question Fallacy from http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/cq.htm
quote: Edited by Zen Deist, : adjusted spacingby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi xongsmith
However: I do want to point out that I suspect your question was deceitful and an attempt to make people slip up .... Your question seemed sneaky, devious and low. By restricting answers to either "Yes" or "No", which are actually entrapments in this carefully constructed question, ... Congrats, you saw that too. See my footnote in Message 305 I don't need to decide anything. Welcome to the (C) crowd. Enjoy.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Chuck77
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? Of course, playing "gotcha" is one of Straggler's favorite games. Another one is to play verbal-hide-the-pea games using the Complex Question Fallacy(1). One question I would have is:
Do you think the "RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale"(2) provides for a better evaluation of the value of concepts, based on objective measurable criteria, than the "Dawkins Scale"? 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.... 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? Well I would certainly agree with you there. Enjoy Notes: (1) - see footnote to Message 305(2) - from Message 264:
(a) - Straggler has not accepted all revisions yet. (b) - using the scientific definition of "fact" with scientific tentativity included. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi xongsmith
So you also are agreeing with me that a few Straggling cases could be a Yes instead of a blanket No on all cases? And who knows what they might be either, before Straggler asks any of us which ones? Of course we need to understand what question the yes or no pertain to, but I kinda doubt that any atheist here would automatically take a "6" position on the untestable concept that there are no gods ... Enjoy.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda
the untestable concept is "there are not gods" taking a 6 and rejecting the untestable concept then means rejecting the concept that "there are no gods" as representing reality capiche?
You doubt that atheists would take the de-facto atheist position ... yes, on the untestable concept that "there are no gods"? and ending up with "there are not (no gods)" and parsing out the double negative you would get "there are gods" wouldn't that de facto make you a 〈2〉 (or ~〈1〉?)then on gods existing?
always taking a 〈6〉 on any untestable concept means taking a 〈6〉 on a 〈6〉 untestable concept ... how does that work out for you? Obviously the position you take is dependent on the concept (and your personal beliefs) rather than some arbitrary criteria applied by rote. Of course this kind of silliness is (a) why forcing the Dawkins scale outside it original intent is questionable, and (b) why one should not make absolute declarations. Enjoy Edited by Zen Deist, : it makes me laugh Edited by Zen Deist, : more lolby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi xongsmith
Is that ALL gods? Or just the ones that are convenient? And what is an "Atheist", when we are considering Dawkins Scales or RAZD scales? Who might they be here? The question is if you automatically take an atheist position on the atheist position that there are no gods. If the proposition is that you always take a 〈6〉 de facto atheist position on any untestable concept, then we need to insert the de facto atheist position (that there are no gods) in as the untestable concept. This of course gives a rather humorous result:
"there are no gods" is the 〈6〉 de facto atheist position and it is an untestable concept, so ...? ... automatically taking a 〈6〉 de facto atheist position on the untestable concept means ...? taking a 〈6〉 de facto atheist position on the "there are no gods" 〈6〉 de facto atheist untestable concept, which means ... you're what? ... ? ... 〈2〉 de facto THEIST ...??? But Strags didn't say you HAD to -- he just asked if you COULD. A lot of people have misinterpreted this. Enjoy.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi xongsmith,
This is stupid. 1.00000 is never a logical position to hold. Try 1.02 or something. Allow for some doubt. There is NEVER enough substantiated objective scientific evidence accepted by the scientific community for a 1.00000. You know it, I know it, they know it, we all know it. You know why they called them "real numbers"? This isn't the fantasy world of Integer Arithmetic. I could really care less. The whole issue of the great Dawkins Scale is silliness and an arbitrary use of subjective criteria that should not be taken outside the original context. If something is a FACT then we are as sure as we can be of it being true, thus forcing us into a 〈1〉 while expressing some doubt would mean doubt that it is a fact. Silliness. Fitting something that is a FACT into the 〈6+〉 category would be implying that a 〈6+〉 ranking could be FACT and that would truly be silliness squared, as it voids the whole difference between 〈6+〉 and 〈7〉 - don't you think? Thus we have to place FACT outside the more tentative 〈6+〉 rankings, it is necessarily forced into 〈7〉 in order to preserve some sanity in this silly scale. Do you think Straggler will claim it is a demonstrated scientific fact that gods do not exist or that he allows SOME tentativity between his 6.99999(etc) and 7.0? Do you AGREE or DISAGREE or with me that 〈1〉 and 〈7〉 must apply to facts or the scale is terminally useless at these points and we would need some intricate limit parsing calculus to separate FACT from opinion?
This is stupid. 1.00000 is never a logical position to hold. Of course, and I have said so -- caveat: without substantiating evidence. The substantiating evidence in this case says it is a FACT that the books and characters portrayed are fiction.
Same stupid. Same FACT says they are fictional characters, that the actual Lord Voldemort as described and portrayed in the novels does not exist as a FACTUAL real being. Do you doubt this?
This is stupid. 1.00000 is never a logical position to hold. Of course it is stupid, but that is because using the scale this way is stupid and because the scale is flawed. NONE of the positions are truly logical, they are all subjective pick and choose criteria (with the sole possible except of agnostic at ≡4.0, to prove the rule). Look at the criteria: how can I tell what the probability or likelihood is without just guessing, so what you are doing is dividing people by how they GUESS rather than how they BELIEVE. There is NO objective criteria to apply to get the cautious timid guesser to end up with the same choice as the reckless arrogant guesser A cautious timid guesser will take a 〈5.0〉 while a reckless arrogant guesser will take a 〈6.9+〉 when they can actually believe the same thing. Useless except possibly as a very broad brush ... in which case the decimals are pointless. Better to use an objective scale where you can look at the objective criteria and end up with the same (or very nearly the same) selection that I do. Enjoyequi Edited by Zen Deist, : agnostic ≡4.0 not 3by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Straggles
It might be a problem if I had said that. But I haven't. Curiously, I do and did understand that, I was just noting that IF ... MUST ... THEN ... you end up with problem conclusions. Ones that are quite humorous. I point this out because it appears some people did NOT understand that.
What I have said is that untestability/unfalsifiability isn't a barrier to de-facto atheistic rejection. Correct, we are agreed, untestability(1) is not a barrier to forming subjective opinions and beliefs. A belief is something you believe or accept as true without requiring evidence to support it, and opinions are notorious for being unable to affect reality. Not having any evidence means no support for the opinions or beliefs, but that is not irregular or unusual. So you form your opinions and beliefs, and you live your life accordingly ... big whap: all people live their lives according to their beliefs and opinions.
... atheistic rejection. What I find curious is the need to reject rather than ignore: If I start at the top with an hypothetical untestable concept and follow it down through the decision diagram ...
... I end up at (C): ignore rather than make a decision, wait (for more information if testable) or just ignore (if untestable), rather than reject the concept.
Now it may not seem much of a difference to the average bear(2) between rejecting and ignoring a concept, but one is an active decision assuming truth, while the other is passive acknowledgement, not so much that we don't know, but that we don't need to know at this time, we don't need to decide, in order to continue with living our lives according to our opinions and beliefs. One wonders what personally threatening condition forces you to a (B) conclusion or obsessive compulsion forces you to a (D) conclusion regarding unspecified hypothetical untested concepts. Can you explain how that can be rational?
As for when to apply - Does the phrase "evidentially baseless" ring any bells? Yes, it's the pseudo science sounding word salad you've used to refer to concepts you don't like, including untestable concepts.
What foundation of science? There are basic assumptions in the philosophy of science that are the foundation of science ...
... and that in shorthand we can say that what the a prioriassumptions of science(3) amount to, is that we assume that "the evidence represents reality".
... If you think the only reason ... we can scientifically know what it is that my soon-to-be-dropped-pen will do, ... The testing and the conclusions regarding the behavior of the pen are founded on the initial a priori assumptions that are the foundation of science.
We can predict the behavior of the pen based on the science that is based on the a priori assumptions, that evidence represents reality.
And we have High Confidence(4) that the previous tested behavior will continue to be exhibited because we still make the a priori assumption that the evidence still represents reality.
Curiously, a priori assumptions are by definition untestable.
Do you "atheistically" reject the untestable a priori assumptions of science?
If you think the only reason we can reject things like the 1 second universe proposition, the only reason we can scientifically know what it is that my soon-to-be-dropped-pen will do, is because we conveniently and baselessly assume away the unevidenced alternatives - Then you are a fool. Amusingly, the High Confidence we have in the scientific prediction that the pen will behave according to the scientific principles that have been based on the a priori assumptions, is because we assume that the a priori assumptions continue to apply. Curiously, we can simply ignore the 1 second universe (and similar propositions), rather than "assume" them "away", because (a) they are untestable, and (b) because they are not a priori assumptions of science. So we can continue to do science based on the a priori assumptions of science. If we wanted to study the possibilities of a 1 second universe, then we would need to use that as an a priori assumption and see where it leads. Probably not far eh? Could we conclude any thing with High Confidence about the pen? If it does fall the first time can we conclude that it will the next time? Enjoy Notes: (1) - Note you have now dishonestly added unfalsifiability, which was not in the original, and when the two are not necessarily synonyms ... is there another Complex Question fallacy coming? Thus I ignore this insertion as more Straggler Dishonest Game play.(2) - another Winnie ther Pooh reference. (3) - we assume that reality exists, we assume that objective evidence represents that reality, and we assume that using that evidence to test concepts we can approximate some truths about reality. (4) - on The RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Straggles answers post with rap fantasy ... I thought Chuck77 did a better job of it ... I guess that's what you do instead of diagrams and charts that actually address the issues.
See Message 15 I think you will find all the answers there. So the best you can do for an answer is rather silly mockery, and just some more of your continued program of poisoning the well(1) snide comments, a program that you have been engaged in fairly consistently for the last year -- attacking my credibility, because it appears you cannot attack my arguments and actually show that they are false. Case in point: you cannot show that science is not founded on basic a priori assumptions, assumptions that are necessarily untestable and that without them the scientific conclusions cannot be reached. Remember this?
Message 123: Tentativity
Science assumes that objective evidence represents reality, and thus it is within the blue area. Everything outside the blue area is the reason that science must be tentative, no matter how strong the confidence we can have in a theory, because it is possible that objective evidence lies and does not represent reality. Once you or I and any scientist assumes that the evidence represents reality, we are in the same boat. We assume that the evidence does not lie. Your reply (Message 126) did not address the issues but dodged them. The part quoted above was repeated again in Message 161, and your reply (Message 126) was another dodge rather than addressing the issue presented, and this was quoted again in Message 170 ... and your reply (Message 174) was ANOTHER dodge. The astute reader of this thread will note that your latest reply (that was purportedly a response to another of my posts) is yet another dodge, that in fact virtually all of your later replies to me are dodges rather than replies. So here is this one again, to see if you can address the issue (and the fact that these are all replies to your messages - you ask questions and ignore answers? Then ask why your questions aren't answered?) Curiously, I did a little research to see what I could find about a priori assumptions, and I found several, including one that had this list (extracted from the article):(2)
ie - that what we see is not illusion or false information, that the evidence represents reality, etc.
Now, curiously, a priori assumptions are by definition untestable: they are assumed to be true to see what develops as a result.
Now in Message 292 you asked:
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. So do you take "a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale)" on the a priori untestable assumptions of science
Just a couple of simple questions, Strags, they should be easy to answer directly. Enjoy Notes: (1) - Page not found - Nizkor
quote:(2) - The Nature and Philosophy of Science quote:(3) - Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia quote: Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty Edited by Zen Deist, : splingby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda
more cheese on that jam sammich?
Curiously, the answer is 'No' because a priori assumptions are not by definition untestable. Do you agree that the a priori assumption that nature\reality exists is untestable?
Assuming them to be true does not mean they are untested or untestable. How do you test to show it is not illusion? Enjoy.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda,
Still putting cheese on that jam sammich?
RAZD writes:
You are moving the goal posts. Do you AGREE with me that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?Panda writes: Curiously, the answer is 'No' because a priori assumptions are not by definition untestable.RAZD writes: Do you agree that the a priori assumption that nature\reality exists is untestable?Do you agree that your previous post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong? Do you still think that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable? I gave you an example of one of the a priori assumptions ... Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists} is untestable, or can you show how to test it against omphalism, solipsism, and other forms of illusion\etc?
Do you agree that your previous post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong? Can you give me an example of an a priori assumption that is testable? -- you've made the claim that there is at least one that can be tested, yes? Enjoy.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Strags,
I note that you have still failed to answer the questions -- having difficulty?
Your deductively derived demands for agnosticism are more convoluted but ultimately no different in principle or method to your demonstration that 1 + 1 = 1 earlier in this thread. Which you, as a self-vaunted math teacher are apparently unable to show to be fallacious, so all you can do is try to dishonestly portray it as "convoluted" when it is quite simple - I don't believe anyone reading it has not understood it. Curiously your inability to actually criticize it speaks louder than your lame dismissal.
Your deductively derived demands for agnosticism ... Another falsehood. On par with your straw man "absolute agnosticism" being false. The open-minded skeptic uses logic and available information to arrive at conclusions, and when those do not provide the answers, says that we don't know, but we can have opinions, opinions based on our knowledge, experience, beliefs and worldview. It does not DEMAND agnosticism, it demands that we recognize and acknowledge when\what we can know, and when\what we cannot, and it recognizes the difference between knowledge, assumption, and opinion.
A process of deductive logic can only ever reveal that which is encapsulated within the assumptions one starts with. Nothing more. So you agree with me that the knowledge that can be scientifically tested and deduced from the evidence is necessarily encapsulated withing the a priori assumptions of science. Excellent. Now, do you also AGREE or DISAGREE with me that the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists} is untestable, or can you show how to test it against omphalism, solipsism, and other forms of illusion\etc?
Message 292 Strags 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? So next, if you agree that the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists} is untestable, then let us know if you take "a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale)" on the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists} ...
Of course I find it rather humorous to think of concepts foundational to science in terms of being "theistic" ... but hey, you are the one who wants to use this scale (silly and subjective as it is). Really just a couple of simple questions, Strags, they should be easy to answer directly. Enjoy Notes: (1) - Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia
quote: 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Panda,
So now you are shifting the burden of proof. This is the second fallacy you have committed (the other one being goal-post moving). First, asking you to substantiate your own claim is not shifting the burden of proof. Second, providing you with an example of an untestable (unless you can show otherwise ...) a priori assumption, to substantiate my assertion was at least true in some cases, and asking you to clarify your position on that, is not moving the goal-posts.
As you are someone who constantly points out other people's logical fallacies: you will therefore understand why I feel that you are being completely dishonest. So I should claim to be perfect yet? When you have pointed these out in the past I have amended my posts - I am not afraid of being corrected, or to admit when I am wrong.
Well, I will do your homework for you this time and then await your next deceitful response. Here is an example of a testable a priori: In economics it is a fundamental a priori assumption that consumers behave rationally. This can be tested by providing consumers controlled choices and collating the results or by analysing purchasing patterns. Congratulations. Thanks. You are correct -- that can be considered a case of an a priori assumption that can be tested. Hope it wasn't too difficult to find.
Do you agree that your post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong? I will agree that, yes, SOME a priori assumptions may be testable.
Do you still think that a priori assumptions are, by definition, untestable? Nope. I overstated the matter a bit: some\many is not all. Got it.
So would you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that SOME a priori assumptions ARE untestable? quote:It does not say it is untested or untestable. What do you think the word 'further' means in that context? There are lots of definitions.
Legal Dictionary | Law.com
quote: In other words, those economists could have been better off treating their assumption as an hypothesis, and testing it before proceeding on the assumption that it was true, yes? Might actually get some better results ... And neither of these definitions address the issue of foundational assumptions made, that cannot be tested, but that are necessary for the logical conclusions that are derived. A priori - definition of a priori by The Free Dictionary
quote: Assumed cause ... , derived without reference to facts or experience ... , made before or without examination ... THAT would certainly qualify as "untested" would you not agree? Do your agree that this kind of untested a priori assumption would include the a priori assumptions that I listed in Message 349:
Curiously, I did a little research to see what I could find about a priori assumptions, and I found several, including one that had this list (extracted from the article):(a)
ie - that what we see is not illusion or false information, that the evidence represents reality, etc. Now we come back to the question of whether or not you agree that these assumptions are untestable:
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that these specific a priori assumptions "made for science to operate" ...
You've been so helpful so far. Enjoy.(a) - The Nature and Philosophy of Science quote:(bold and underline added for emphasis). Edited by AdminModulous, : Summaries only, content hidden, use peek to view.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Strags,
How about you stop trying to convince yourself that you are right? You mean I should behave more like you trying to convince everyone that you are right?
... that your ever changing array of scales, charts and conditions are nothing more than a giant circle of post-hoc justification for the things you have already decided anyway. Which, not so curiously, is unnecessarily misrepresenting the scales, charts and refinements thereof. Science is improved by refining ideas to closer approximate reality, and yet you complain when this is done? When I tried to get you to assist in the refinement you initially did, but then quickly back-peddled and started another pogrom of attacks. I wondered what bit you. It appears that my brother is correct, that there is some kind of barrier(1) to actually looking at my posts and reading them for what they say and mean, and that it seems necessary to attack my person and credibility in order to discredit what I say. What can be so dangerous about ideas, that this reaction occurs?
These are the things we should already know about each other RAZ. Maybe we should become better acquainted? Dinner and a movie? Ah, but we would never agree on which one ... I have said, and still believe, that we are closer in thought than you think. What you reject and I ignore in our daily lives are likely very close, and I do think we can reach agreement on many of those charts you love so much.
Message 365 ... But I genuinely do now feel that there isn't any more need to tackle RAZ's particular argument. Rightly or wrongly I am satisfied that it isn't worth the effort. That it is a post-hoc act of circularity. Whether that will stop me being compelled to respond again when he inevitably cites his ever-changing scales and makes his ever present but ultimately fuckwitted "Ben Franklin in in a field without a means to test for electricity" analogy.... Maybe not. And the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well" comes full circle -- you have now convinced yourself that you no longer need to engage ideas that challenge your beliefs. Cognitive dissonance theory(1) predicts this behavior, just as it predicts the "poisoning the well" behavior. Curiously nobody has been able to actually say why the Ben Franklin analogy is actually faulty.
Because those who want their beliefs to be immune from atheistic rejection will always happily accept such arguments as profound insights without further questioning of the implications of such a stance. And - knowing myself - I will just have to challenge that. And cognitive dissonance theory(1) predicts that you will. In closing I will once again point out:
That when there IS evidence to support a conclusion, the rational logical conclusion is (A), but when there is insufficient evidence, and there is no compelling reason to reach a conclusion ...
... the logical rational conclusion is (C), and ignore (for now) concepts that are too unsupported to reach a logical decision (rather than reject them). The extra steps of making a decision to reject concepts in order to ignore them is unnecessary. In addition, I will note that nobody here has shown a valid logical reason to arrive at a (D) conclusion. It is not logical or necessarily rational, but it is something we all do: these decisions are based on our experiences, education, beliefs and worldview when we do make them, and it is only honest to recognize that detail. This is not "relentless agnosticism" nor "absolute agnosticism" rather it is being honest in what can be derived from evidence when available, from logic when evidence is not sufficient, and what is derived from one's experiences, education, beliefs and worldview when logic fails. Further, I will always find it much more constructive to look at objective standards rather than subjective standards for evaluating how much confidence we can have in the different kinds of concepts:
... and I still want to know if you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that these changes are improvements ... perhaps in the next thread ... Finally, I leave you with:
Where the orange area represents nature and reality, the gray area is our human concepts, the purple area is our concepts of nature and reality, and the blue area is the area covered by scientific knowledge and theory. There is what we know, what we think we know, what we think we can know, and then there is the rest. We don't really know reality, but we assume that evidence represents reality, and that, by using the scientific method and testing, we can approximate reality in ever closer iterations. We assume that the conclusions derived by this process continue to apply to the real world, and therefore that we can predict studied behavior with confidence. EnjoyNotes: (1) - Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia quote: Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty Edited by Zen Deist, : details Edited by Zen Deist, : added footnoteby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024