Scientific Knowledge

Hi xongsmith 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: But Strags didn't say you HAD to -- he just asked if you COULD.A lot of people have misinterpreted this.Enjoy.

Ah - I didn't realise you intended there to be a double negative. Could you be specific about who exactly you are mis-representing?

Hi xongsmith, 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? 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 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? 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 guesserA 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.EnjoyequiEdited by Zen Deist, : agnostic ≡4.0 not 3

ZD writes: I'd like to think of it as an open interval, (1,7), on the real number line. 6+ would be the interval [6,7), where 6 is included in the set.If you want to be in [6,7) or if you want to be in (1,2], then it is incumbent upon you to provide objective substantiatable scientific evidence supporting your position. If you cannot provide it or will not provide it (there's that unable/unwilling thing again), then you must back off towards the agnostic center, (2,6).You can however hold any opinion you would want.Actually on 3rd thought, even the (2,6) folk should give reasons why.Yeah, maybe we should just junk the whole thing.p.s.
As for FACT...Isn't scientific fact still tentative to a tiny degree? Wouldn't that just be something like 1.0002? (And it's complement, NOT(a non-FACT) 6.9998?)

Hi Straggles 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. 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. 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? Yes, it's the pseudo science sounding word salad you've used to refer to concepts you don't like, including untestable concepts. 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 priori
assumptions of science⁽³⁾ amount to, is that we assume that "the evidence represents reality". 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? 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

If you put ANY untestable proposition through your little exercise in pseudo-logic it will necessarily come out the other side demanding your silly brand of agnosticism.Unsurprisingly if you ONLY apply your little exercise to those propositions which you have already decided you are agnostic about, and refuse to consider anything that doesn't give you the answer you want, you will find your arguments utterly convincing and entirely in line with what you have already decided.Your conclusions are not derived from your "logical" analysis. Instead your ever changing argument is designed around achieving the conclusions you have already drawn. It is an elaborate and ornately decorated post-hoc justification. Nothing more.You have gone in a massive circle and "proved" yourself right. If that was your aim I guess congratulations are in order. See Message 278 and Message 282Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

there is of course always the make it up as you go along option. I am not asking you if you are an atheist towards anything you twit.I am asking you if unfalsifiability/untestability alone is a barrier to taking an atheistic stance towards a given proposition.Why on Earth would it be 'YES' for some and 'NO' for others?

See Message 15I think you will find all the answers there. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Panda goes: Any of us would possibly love to do that, but...only after you tell us when you quit beating & cheating on your wife. Sorry pal. You asked for it. Come on, Panda - you started out so well here.....and there's NO WAY I'm giving you a Jeer here. You are a good human.

Straggler continues: Aren't we all doing this? Why are you so special? Shit! I thought you were smarter than that. I am talking about your fucking barrier. To make you understand that one size does not fit all.

I think that you are talking at cross purposes.Straggler is asking if there is a blanket rule that means that untestability requires taking a purely agnostic attitude. The answer to that has to be a straight yes or no. And "no" is the only answer that allows judgement of individual cases.So either you are really saying that you want to claim that there is a blanket rule at some times and not others - which is the way Straggler seems to interpret your answer - or you haven't quite understood the question. I think it's the latter.

I don't have a wife.
Well - that was not a difficult question to answer.And if RAZD wants to make up positions that no-one else has put forward, as if they are some kind of 'gotcha', then I am left with no option but to point out that he is either making a meaningless point or he is mis-representing someone.Seriously, Xongsmith - only post when you are sober.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

In Message 241:, Straggler wrote:

quote:

---

What does experience tell you is the necessary source of propositions for which there is no evidence? In the absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever where but the minds of creative beings unrestrained by external truths in their conceptions can such notions come from? What does experience (in conjunction with those critical thinking skills) tell you about the likelihood of evidentially baseless propositions being correct? Possible in some philosophical sense. They cannot be discarded with absolute certainty. But "very improbable" as actual aspects of reality.

---

According to this logic, if the proposition is: "there are no gods", and we don't have any evidence for that, then it should be considered very improbable that there aren't

I did too answer that question, back in Message 160:

quote:

---

Well why do they "work" more successfully than the alternatives unless they are more accurate descriptions of reality than the alternatives? More "correct" than the alternatives, if you will.

​

There's multiple reasons. Part of it is how the theory is set-up (rigorous and parsimonious), how simple the falsification test would be, and what you're testing it on.

---

I referred you to it again in Message 164 when you asked the same question again. This is the third time, I won't do it anymore. If you're theory more closely matches reality, then it will work better, but working better doesn't necessarily mean that your threory more closely matches reality. Bullshit. They don't even address them at all and that's gotta be one of the stupidest reason to.

Yes, I believe that the hogwart theory is suspect because I googled Stragglers Voldemort theory and got nothing but EVC as a reference.
I realize this is Stagglers point, that anyone at anytime can just make something up. But each claim must be examined individually and not just dismissed outright imo.