Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Knowledge
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 296 of 377 (635925)
10-03-2011 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Straggler
10-02-2011 6:23 PM


How about a new thread? (or two)
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:
  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?


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?
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 264
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty, proper link

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2011 6:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 6:00 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 301 by Straggler, posted 10-03-2011 8:31 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 305 of 377 (635995)
10-03-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Straggler
10-03-2011 8:31 AM


Re: How about a new thread? (or two)
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?
question
                    |
        is there sufficient valid
     information available to decide
       |                        |
      yes                       no
       |                        |
   decide based           is a decision
   on empirical         (1) necessary or
  valid evidence        (2) can it be ignored?
    =logical               /            \
   conclusion            (1)            (2) ... but ... ?
      (A)                /               |              |
                      decide           ignore         make a
                     based on          rather        decision
                    inadequate        than make       anyway
                     evidence         a decision     based on
                      =guess            =wait        =opinion
                       (B)               (C)           (D)
(yes that is a new refined more specific clarified version - like it?)
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:
Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.
Examples:
  1. You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.
  2. Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?
  3. Have you stopped using illegal sales practises? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)

Edited by Zen Deist, : adjusted spacing

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Straggler, posted 10-03-2011 8:31 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2011 6:20 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 306 of 377 (635997)
10-03-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by xongsmith
10-03-2011 2:50 PM


Deceitful? Straggler? I'm shocked!
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.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 2:50 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 307 of 377 (636003)
10-03-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Chuck77
10-03-2011 3:55 AM


Appropriate Questions?
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:
The RAZD\Straggler(a) Concept Scale (with proposed revisions incorporated)
  1. No Confidence Concepts
    1. No evidence, or the evidence is contradictory, conjecture involved, hypothetical arguments,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
  2. Low Confidence Concepts
    1. 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
    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
  3. Medium Confidence Concepts
    1. 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,
    2. 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.
  4. High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, empirically tested, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
  5. Extreme Confidence Concepts
    1. Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven or accepted to be true.
    2. It is considered, or widely accepted, to be a fact(b).
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.
(a) - Straggler has not accepted all revisions yet.
(b) - using the scientific definition of "fact" with scientific tentativity included.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Chuck77, posted 10-03-2011 3:55 AM Chuck77 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 309 of 377 (636021)
10-03-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by xongsmith
10-03-2011 5:51 PM


Re: Straggler's tricky dick question
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.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 5:51 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 6:24 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 311 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 6:26 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 315 of 377 (636072)
10-03-2011 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Panda
10-03-2011 6:24 PM


english 101
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 lol

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 6:24 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Panda, posted 10-03-2011 9:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 316 of 377 (636078)
10-03-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by xongsmith
10-03-2011 6:26 PM


Re: Straggler misunderstood?
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.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 6:26 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 318 of 377 (636096)
10-03-2011 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by xongsmith
10-01-2011 6:29 PM


silly scale silly results silly conclusions silly
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 3

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by xongsmith, posted 10-01-2011 6:29 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by xongsmith, posted 10-04-2011 1:06 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 320 of 377 (636106)
10-04-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Straggler
10-02-2011 8:21 AM


Re: the light slowly seeps into the tightly shut eyes ...
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 ...
[color=purple]question[/color]
                    [color=purple]|[/color]
        [color=purple]is there sufficient valid[/color]
     [color=purple]information available to decide[/color]
       |                        [color=purple]|[/color]
      yes                       [color=purple]no[/color]
       |                        [color=purple]|[/color]
   decide based           [color=purple]is a decision[/color]
   on empirical         [color=purple](1) necessary or [/color]
  valid evidence        [color=purple](2) can it be ignored?[/color]
    =logical               /            [color=purple]\[/color]
   conclusion            (1)            [color=purple](2)[/color] ... but ... ?
      (A)                /               [color=purple]|[/color]              |
                      decide           [color=purple]ignore[/color]         make a
                     based on          [color=purple]rather[/color]        decision
                    inadequate        [color=purple]than make[/color]       anyway
                     evidence         [color=purple]a decision[/color]     based on
                      =guess         [color=purple]=wait/ignore[/color]    =opinion
                       (B)               [color=purple](C)[/color]           (D)
... 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.
(1) Do you AGREE with me that it is logical and rational to arrive at a (C) conclusion, and ignore any concept that does not have sufficient evidence to support a decision, whether they are untestable or not?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...
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 ...
(2) Do you AGREE with me that there are basic assumptions in the philosophy of science that are the foundation of science?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...
... and that in shorthand we can say that what the a priori
assumptions of science(3) amount to, is that we assume that "the evidence represents reality".
(3) Do you AGREE with me that we can say that what the a priori assumptions of science mean is that we assume the evidence represents reality?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...
... 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.
(4) Do you AGREE with me that the testing and the conclusions of science are based on the assumption that the evidence represents reality?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...
We can predict the behavior of the pen based on the science that is based on the a priori assumptions, that evidence represents reality.
(5) Do you AGREE with me that the predictions of science are based on the a priori assumptions of science?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...
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.
(6) Do you AGREE with me that we can have High Confidence(4) that the previous tested behavior will continue to be exhibited because of the a priori assumption that the evidence still represents reality?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...
Curiously, a priori assumptions are by definition untestable.
(7) Do you AGREE with me that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...
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

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2011 8:21 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2011 6:09 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 349 of 377 (636353)
10-05-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Straggler
10-04-2011 6:20 AM


How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
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)
  1. that there exists an external objective reality,
  2. that our senses are generally reliable,
  3. that natural processes operate in a fairly consistent manner,
  4. etc.
ie - that what we see is not illusion or false information, that the evidence represents reality, etc.
Do you AGREE with me that there indeed are a priori assumptions basic to the foundations of science?
  YES ... or
  NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...
Now, curiously, a priori assumptions are by definition untestable: they are assumed to be true to see what develops as a result.
Do you AGREE with me that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?
  YES ... or
  NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...
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
What "Dawkin's Scale(3) position do you take on the a priori assumptions of science that are by definition untestable?
  1 - Strong theist.
  2 - De facto theist.
  3 - Leaning towards theism.
  4 - Completely impartial
  5 - Leaning towards atheism.
  6 - De facto atheist ... or
  7 - Strong atheist. ... and please explain why ...
Just a couple of simple questions, Strags, they should be easy to answer directly.
Enjoy

Notes:
(1) - Page not found - Nizkor
quote:
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
  1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
  2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.
(2) - The Nature and Philosophy of Science
quote:
It is evident that theories and data by themselves are insufficient for science to work, and thus other factors are needed for science to operate. This group of factors in the nature of science is that of shaping principles, which can be used to select theories and form the foundations of science. Many assumptions are made in science. One example is the uniformity of nature. That is, the belief that natural processes operate in a fairly consistent manner. This shaping principle is the basis for the idea of natural laws. For example, Newton’s laws are said to apply throughout the universe.[33] This is believed even though scientists have not actually tested the laws everywhere in the universe. Natural laws could not exist in science without assuming the uniformity of nature. Other assumptions made for science to operate include that there exists an external objective reality, that our senses are generally reliable, and so forth.
(3) - Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia
quote:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty
Edited by Zen Deist, : spling

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2011 6:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Percy, posted 10-06-2011 5:57 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 351 by Panda, posted 10-06-2011 6:31 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 356 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2011 1:53 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 354 of 377 (636397)
10-06-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Panda
10-06-2011 6:31 AM


Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
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.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Panda, posted 10-06-2011 6:31 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Panda, posted 10-06-2011 9:55 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 357 of 377 (636454)
10-06-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Panda
10-06-2011 9:55 AM


Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
Hi Panda,
Still putting cheese on that jam sammich?
RAZD writes:
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?
You are moving the goal posts.
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.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Panda, posted 10-06-2011 9:55 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Panda, posted 10-06-2011 10:45 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 358 of 377 (636469)
10-06-2011 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Straggler
10-06-2011 1:53 PM


Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
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} ...
What "Dawkin's Scale(1) position do you take on the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists}?
  1 - Strong theist.
  2 - De facto theist.
  3 - Leaning towards theism.
  4 - Completely impartial
  5 - Leaning towards atheism.
  6 - De facto atheist ... or
  7 - Strong atheist. ... and please explain why ...
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:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2011 1:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2011 8:13 AM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 368 of 377 (636576)
10-07-2011 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Panda
10-06-2011 10:45 PM


Thanks Panda
Edited by AdminModulous, : Summaries only, content hidden, use peek to view.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Panda, posted 10-06-2011 10:45 PM Panda has not replied

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


(1)
Message 369 of 377 (636580)
10-07-2011 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Straggler
10-07-2011 8:13 AM


Summation from the Open-Minded Skeptic Deist
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:
[color=purple]question[/color]
                    [color=purple]|[/color]
        [color=purple]is there sufficient valid[/color]
     [color=purple]information available to decide[/color]
       [color=purple]|[/color]                        |
      [color=purple]yes[/color]                       no
       [color=purple]|[/color]                        |
   [color=purple]decide based[/color]           is a decision
   [color=purple]on empirical[/color]         (1) necessary or
  [color=purple]valid evidence[/color]        (2) can it be ignored?
    [color=purple]=logical[/color]               /            \
   [color=purple]conclusion[/color]            (1)            (2) ... but ... ?
      [color=purple](A)[/color]                /               |              |
                      decide           ignore         make a
                     based on          rather        decision
                    inadequate        than make       anyway
                     evidence         a decision     based on
                      =guess         =wait/ignore   =opinion ?
                       (B)               (C)           (D)
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 ...
[color=purple]question[/color]
                    [color=purple]|[/color]
        [color=purple]is there sufficient valid[/color]
     [color=purple]information available to decide[/color]
       |                        [color=purple]|[/color]
      yes                       [color=purple]no[/color]
       |                        [color=purple]|[/color]
   decide based           [color=purple]is a decision[/color]
   on empirical         [color=purple](1) necessary or [/color]
  valid evidence        [color=purple](2) can it be ignored?[/color]
    =logical               /            [color=purple]\[/color]
   conclusion            (1)            [color=purple](2)[/color] ... but ... ?
      (A)                /               [color=purple]|[/color]              |
                      decide           [color=purple]ignore[/color]         make a
                     based on          [color=purple]rather[/color]        decision
                    inadequate        [color=purple]than make[/color]       anyway
                     evidence         [color=purple]a decision[/color]     based on
                      =guess         [color=purple]=wait/ignore[/color]   =opinion ?
                       (B)               [color=purple](C)[/color]           (D)
... 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:
The RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale (rev 1 proposed changes)
  1. No Confidence Concepts
    1. No evidence, or the evidence is inconclusive, conjecture involved, hypothetical arguments,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
  2. Low Confidence Concepts
    1. 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 valid or invalid
    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
  3. Medium Confidence Concepts
    1. 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,
    2. 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.
  4. High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, empirically tested, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
  5. Extreme Confidence Concepts
    1. Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven to be true.
    2. It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact.
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.
... 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.
Enjoy


Notes:
(1) - Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia
quote:
Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. The phrase was coined by Leon Festinger in his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled the followers of a UFO cult as reality clashed with their fervent beliefs.[3][4] It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology. ...
Experience can clash with expectations, ...
The most famous case in the early study of cognitive dissonance was described by Leon Festinger and others in the book When Prophecy Fails.[5] The authors infiltrated a group that was expecting the imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that prediction failed, the movement did not disintegrate, but grew instead. By sharing cult beliefs with others, they gained acceptance and thus reduced their own dissonance ...
... When Prophecy Fails. This book gave an inside account of the increasing belief which sometimes follows the failure of a cult's prophecy. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, believing they alone would survive the Earth's destruction. The appointed time came and passed without incident. They faced acute cognitive dissonance: had they been the victim of a hoax? Had they donated their worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose to believe something less dissonant: the aliens had given earth a second chance, and the group was now empowered to spread the word: earth-spoiling must stop. The group dramatically increased their proselytism despite the failed prophecy.[12]
An overarching principle of cognitive dissonance is that it involves the formation of an idea or emotion in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a successful/functional person", "I am a good person", or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. ...
Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance.
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty
Edited by Zen Deist, : details
Edited by Zen Deist, : added footnote

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2011 8:13 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2011 10:54 PM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024