Re: Scientific Knowledge In The Necessary Absence of Certainty
Hi Taq,
I think this is what it all boils down to. If you want to be a nit picker, RAZD is correct. Absolute knowledge does require absolute certainty. However, we don't live in a world that affords absolute certainty. What we have instead is practical knowledge that works for our day to day lives.
Thank you. The issue to me is a little more complex, and has to do with the appearances of the claims of science to the common folk.
You often hear people complaining that {X} is presented as fact when it is just a theory., which then usually results in discussions of the tentative nature of science.
Many fundamentalist people are not interested in having "tentative knowledge" -- they feel they have "absolute knowledge" and that all knowledge should measure up to that level.
My own feelings are that practical knowledge is different from faith based beliefs. While we may not have absolute certainty, we do have previous experiences and independent verification through inference that an idea seems to work. This is in stark contrast to faith based beliefs where there is no verification or inference from independent data.
A better choice of words than "tentative knowledge" (which implies "almost knowing"), but one is still fighting against the common (false) impression of knowledge being absolute in science or touted as absolute.
Science is practical knowledge. It doesn't pretend to be anything else. If you are looking for answers to metaphysical answers of ultimate knowledge and absolute certainty then you probably don't want to use science as your epistemology. We can dream up fantasies of why the scientific method could be rotten at the core (e.g. Last Thursdayism), but at the end of the day we use scientific knowledge because it works.
Science has evidence from tests and conclusions with different levels of confidence depending on the degree of testing and validation, and the higher the confidence the more practical the concepts are to be used to predict behavior etc.
An engineer makes practical use of the information available to him about the characteristics and behavior of materials when designing things. They don't know to the gnats posterior appendage when a steel beam will fail, for example, but they do understand the range of loading where the steel is not likely to fail and then throw on a factor of safety to make sure they are in the safety zone. Even then they will not say that they KNOW that the beam will not fail.
They will, on the other hand, know that if they follow the proven procedures of design, take into account all the known variables, and diligently complete the design without making any mistakes, that they can have high confidence that the beam will not fail.
I think this is what it all boils down to. If you want to be a nit picker, RAZD is correct. ...
And I think we on this forum in particular and science in general should be nit-picky about the language we use to prevent unintended confusion and false impressions.
Enjoy.
ps -- Straggler, please learn to use the [list] function properly.
Re: Scientific Knowledge In The Necessary Absence of Certainty
Hi Taq, thanks.
I think there is something else going on. Even when it is made clear that scientific knowledge is tentative, creationists still push the idea that creationism is scientific. If what you say is true we should see the opposite effect, but we don't.
They don't want knowledge to be tentative as that detracts from their fixed beliefs.
They believe that science also claims absolute knowledge
They want creationism to be seen as science so that it has the aura of absolute knowledge.
Uh oh. So what do I do now? Here are two scientists (the authors) who use the word proof as part of a scientific hypothesis, and it is in a peer reviewed scientific paper. So are the authors ignorant of how science works? Are the editors and reviewers also ignorant of how science works? How did this slip through?
The problem is that scientists tend to use sloppy language knowing that their peers understand how science works and can read between the lines. Scientists also let inappropriate anthropomorphic and teleological language slip into their papers for the same reasons.
Indeed, people can be lax in the way they express their opinions and conclusions. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be vigilant in this regard, as we are often placed in the position of interpreting science to lay people.
I would comment on that article after posting it to the effect that
The use of proof in this article is not appropriate. What the evidence shows is that common ancestry is the best explanation, and that it is one we have high confidence in, due to the pervasiveness of this evidence and the correlations with evidence of common ancestry from other sources.
Even more, I see no reason for scientists to cater to creationists. Peer reviewed papers are meant as a communication between scientists, not scientists and reality deniers. If creationists want to fly the banner of science it is up to them to bring their standards UP to the rest of science, not drag science down to their level.
Nor do I. That task falls on us when we present the papers to the creationists to portray the evidence and the conclusion in the most honest manner.
Re: Scientific Knowledge In The Necessary Absence of Certainty
Hi Straggles
Once again you miss the important elements of my posts to create a false straw man that you then pretend is my position.
For example - It is ridiculous to say that we know that the Earth is over 4 billion years old whilst simultaneously declaring that we have no idea whether or not the entire universe was created omphamistically last Thursday, 1 second ago or indeed at any other point in the relatively recent past.
This would at first blush seem an honest post, however this
For example - It is ridiculous to say that we know that the Earth is over 4 billion years old
Is not my position. In fact it is blatantly COUNTER to my position. That makes your whole argument based on this false statement irrevocably wrong (once again).
From Message 1666 in the Peanut Gallery Thread: Indeed, we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.
The astute and clear thinking observer will note significant differences between this actual statement and the way it was portrayed by Straggler.
The astute and clear thinking observer will note that these differences take into account the uncertainty that Straggler poses above as a problem for my position. When you read the actual position this apparent conflict evaporates, like so many similar arguments Straggles has tried to make about my position/s.
The astute and clear thinking observer will also note that Taq commented in Message 3
I think this is what it all boils down to. If you want to be a nit picker, RAZD is correct. ...
The problem is not with my argument but your misunderstanding of it.
Note to ADMIN: this kind of behavior of taking an argument from one thread and imposing it into another (and another and another) is what I call stalking. It is unfair to the other participants in the threads.
RAZ writes:
Straggler, please learn to use the list function properly.
You can make bulleted lists or ordered lists (by number or letter).
Unordered, bulleted list:
[list] [*] This is the first bulleted item.
[*] This is the second bulleted item.
[/list]
This produces:
This is the first bulleted item.
This is the second bulleted item.
Note that you must include a closing [/list] when you end each list.
Making ordered lists is just by adding a numeric or alphabetic starting value such as [list=A] or [list=1]. Typing [list=A] will produce a list from A to Z. Using [list=1] will produce numbered lists. You can also begin a list at any value, such as [list=E]or [list=27]. Changing the starting letter to lowercase generates a list using lower case letters.
Here's an example:
[list=A] [*] This is the first bulleted item.
[*] This is the second bulleted item.
[/list]
This produces:
This is the first bulleted item.
This is the second bulleted item.
Lists can also use uppercase and lowercase Roman numbers by adding the "R" or "r" parameter as in [list=1,r] or [list=5,R], for example: ...
Certainty based on degree of evidence, testing and confirmation.
Hi Panda,
I'd like to clear up an issue or two here.
Straggler writes:
Whatever Straggles writes about my position, you can be sure that it is his interpretation of his impression based on his biases, and not my position. He has some kind of stick up his posterior projection about what I believe and my approach to reality, and no amount of discourse has been able to convince him that almost all of his imagined problems are of his own making. He INVENTS positions for me. Most of the time it is amusing to watch him stomp around the forum like some kind of comic avenger.
But I think he does have a consistent position: he will say anything to maintain his belief in a deity.
No. I will not argue that my personal opinions and beliefs are anything but my personal opinions and beliefs and it is irrelevant to me whether you or anyone think it is valid or justified or not. I care more about ant frass in Antarctica than I do about anyone's opinion of my opinions and beliefs. In addition, being open minded, my opinions and beliefs are subject to change.
What I WILL argue for is the logic of the agnostic position, that without sufficient evidence pro or con, that there is no compelling reason to be other than agnostic -- or an open minded skeptic (a more descriptive term imho).
question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a
on empirical decision
valid evidence necessary?
(A) / \
yes no ... but ...
/ | |
decide why make a
based on decide decision
inadequate at this anyway
evidence time? based on
=guess =wait =opinion
(B) (C) (D)
Both Case (A) and Case (C) are logical positions, based on evaluation of the available evidence. Case (B) is taking a "best guess" under duress of survival etc, while Case (D) is assuming that your opinion is valid.
Personally I feel that it is important to keep an open mind, and not make arbitrary decisions based more on opinion than evidence. Frankly I am rather amused by the way some people feel they must rush to reach decisions when there is no compelling reason to do so, and insufficient empirical objective evidence to use as a basis for a rational choice.
But I also feel that it is important to be skeptical of claims that are not sufficiently supported by objective empirical evidence. I doubt you, or anyone rational, would disagree with that. This skepticism works both ways, however: when there is a lack of supporting evidence and a lack of contrary evidence, I feel it is necessary to be skeptical of both ends of the issue (and leading back to agnostic). It is important to be skeptical of your opinions and beliefs as much as it is important to be skeptical of the opinions and beliefs of others.
When we look into concepts like the Easter Bunny, we can see that both the bunny and eggs were symbols of fertility used by the Norse Goddess Eoster -- I told Straggles that he could look up the information, but it seems to me that he would rather make pompous asinine statements about me than actually do some work in this regard. In any event there is no evidence I am aware of that the modern folklore concept is anything more than a conflation of several things that were not in the original religious beliefs. Thus I am skeptical, but open to further evidence showing otherwise.
quote:Another drawing of Eostre, the Teutonic Goddess of Spring and the Full Moon, Her basket filled with eggs dyed red, daffodils, lilies-of-the-valley, and a pair of baby hares.
No "easter bunny" there. The dyed eggs and the baby rabbits are in the same basket, and are symbols of fertility.
Amusingly, I have been aware of this for over a decade. What I told Straggles is that we can each make up our own minds based on the evidence that is available. This was just after I had done a run-down on Santa Clause, showing where the original St Nick came from and where, when and by whom, several aspects of modern folklore were added. I told Straggles that he could apply similar research to the Easter Bunny, and noted that he could form his opinion and I could form mine from the evidence. It seems he would rather decide based on his opinions and beliefs.
Message 44: RAZD says: "we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.""
Chuck cheers.
I say: "We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have predict that the pen will fall downwards."
RAZD cheers.
I say: "We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings."
Chuck jeers. RAZD acknowledges the reply.
Curiously, what you fail to see here, is that there is a vast difference in the quantity and quality of evidence, test methods and information between {the age of the earth and gravity} and {the supernatural beings}.
There is no evidence I am aware of that shows that a single supernatural being found in a religious text has been demonstrated to be the product of human imagination.
There is no test that I am aware of that can distinguish an actual experience of supernatural presence and an experience that is imaginary, except by assuming that it is one or the other. We see Chuck77 assume it is one, and PaulK assume it is the other.
Curiously, the continued LACK of evidence, and the continued LACK of a valid test method, leaves us only with information, mostly anecdotal, and subjective interpretation of it. This leaves me with very little confidence that it is anything other than wishful thinking and confirmation bias.
The age of the earth has been confirmed by so many different means, from astronomy to physics to geology to the simple counting of layers, and the vast consilience between the different methodologies, from evidence as small as a Uranium Halo to something as large as the solar system.
One can still be skeptical of the actual age and each of the different methodologies, but to be skeptical of the entire mass of information, data, test validations etc etc etc, one is essentially forced to consider that the only alternative is for the evidence to be false, intricately contrived, rather than representative of reality. Of course, the root problem here, is that this is assumed not to be the case, that science makes this assumption and then proceeds from there. This is the root cause of the necessary tentativity of science. You can't Know.
Likewise the issue of gravity. There exists reams of evidence and data from testing and further testing and refinements of testing, each time getting closer and closer each time in the approximation of reality that science is.
One can still be skeptical of the latest results for gravity and each of the different methodologies,but to be skeptical of the entire mass of information, data, test validations etc etc etc, one is essentially forced to consider that the only alternative is for the evidence to be false, intricately contrived, rather than representative of reality. Of course, the root problem here, is that this is assumed not to be the case, that science makes this assumption and then proceeds from there. This is the root cause of the necessary tentativity of science. You can't Know.
The hypothetical conjecture that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination does not have any confirming evidence, nor does it have a test methodology -- both bluegenes and the Peanut Gallery have failed to provide any, which is remarkable for something claimed to be scientifically investigated and supported by "plenty of evidence" - - - unless what you are dealing with is pseudoscience, confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
Rather obviously, imho, if you think that it is evidenced as well as the age of the earth or as well as gravity, you are mistaken. They are not comparable concepts.
But I think he does have a consistent position:
... that pseudoscience, false (pseudo) skepticism, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, idee fixe and wishful thinking are not science?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : replaced stilted nonsense subtitle
Re: Certainty based on degree of evidence, testing and confirmation.
Hi Panda, thanks,
Then discuss my comments then.
Then discuss my comments and my positions directly from my posts, rather than assuming that someone else is properly representing them.
Which is where you equivocate between knowing and 'knowing'.
Ah, so taking an agnostic approach is equivocating? Taking an open-minded but skeptical approach is equivocating?
If you feel you must make that conclusion, that's your choice.
You repeatedly bounce between "We don't know anything in science"
Can you quote me saying that, or did you get it from someone else? If you can't quote me, then I suggest you apologize. Please don't start misrepresenting me too, or start putting false statements in my mouth.
We've been over what we 'know' and what we don't 'know' already, and you have even quoted me, cheered, and copied me on that issue.
I am arguing that we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings.
What I see there is a lot of subjective assumptions, not science.
What is the evidence, what is the test methodology? How would they produce a positive result for a supernatural presence?
... only known source of supernatural beings.
What about religious documents -- aren't they a source of knowledge about supernatural beings? Seems to me there are a lot of them.
Or do you mean "only source known to science" - as bluegenes has been forced to equivocated to, because of his failure to deal with the religious literature -- because such other potential sources have just not been tested?
Isn't it rather unscientific to just ignore vast potential resources that may already include falsification of the hypothesis? Or is it just assumed to be imagination?
This has forced you into the position of claiming that you are agnostic about the easter bunny.
Amusingly, you must not have read my post (either the latest nor the first on this amusing issue), but taken Straggler's misinformation instead.
If you want to discuss my position then ask me -- and please delete all information you have absorbed from the constant misinformation campaign (whether Straggler's or others, whether it is unwittingly done, because of failure to understand, or not is immaterial to the issue that it is more often false than correct).
I see little reason to continue fighting your cognitive dissonance.
Curiously, the cognitive dissonance I see is between claiming to have "plenty of evidence" and not being able to show a single piece of evidence that shows that a single supernatural being is a product of human imagination. All you have is subjective inference based on personal beliefs and biases, as far as I can see -- can you provide something else?
Thousands of posts and not one identified supernatural being shown to be fiction by testing and documentation of results.
Is it cognitive dissonance on my part to point out this rather blatant failure?
As an open-minded skeptic I point out that the case for {supernatural presence} has not been sufficiently established by the available evidence, AND that the case for {all supernatural presence being the product of human imagination} has not been sufficiently established by the available evidence, including all evidence (subjective or objective) in both categories.
Conflicting positions ... consistency on what we can "know"
Hi Straggles
Hello again RAZ. I see that once again you have forsaken the opportunity to enlighten us ...
No Straggles, what I have "forsaken" (and will continue to forsake) is the opportunity to waste a lot of time in another debate with you when you consistently (a) fail to understand my position/s, evidenced by your failure to paraphrase them without alteration of the meaning, and (b) you are never satisfied with an answer. When we finished with Santa Claus you moved on to the Easter Bunny ... a consistent pattern of badgering and stalking from thread to thread. To put it bluntly I don't find debate with you productive in any way.
For example, I have already answered the issue of omphalism, and other extenuations of the same basic concept. I do not need to keep repeating an answer once made, no matter what you think about the answer. I suggest you accept the answer as having been given, and suck it up that it doesn't match your various personal opinions, wants and desires. If you don't like it, then I suggest you study the ant frass production in antarctica, as that will likely be more productive.
... in the face of evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable alternatives ...
Curiously, it should already be massively obvious that we will never agree about the details, even where our opinions are similar, because your position is simply not my position. It seems you can't accept this fact: I suggest you learn to.
Now ...
... being open-minded, I AM prepared to accept your (et al) watered down usage of "know" to include a degree of tentativeness ...
Straggles writes:
Message 1: Now I would say that I know, even before doing it, that when I drop my pen it will drop as gravity predicts. Tentatively - If you insist on philosophical pendaticism. But I KNOW to all practical intents and purposes.
Why tentative? Well it is conceivably possible that there is some reason that my prediction could be entirely wrong. The universe could conceivably have been created fully formed 1 second ago with completely different physical laws (esp with regard to falling pens) than the ones I falsely remember. So even when I say that I KNOW this degree of tentativity is implicit.
... if you can explain to me why it does not apply here:
quote:1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
Most devout theists would be 2's with some (fundamentalists?) that can be classed as 1's.
I'd say I'm a 3 - "agnostic deist."
(Note that this was two years ago)
The 1.0 theist C.G. Jung says "I know" (that god exists).
The 7.0 atheist says "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."
Meanwhile, in the past you have claimed:
Straggles writes:
Logically speaking: God is knowable, Message 34: Anyone who claims to be at 1 or 7 has to be deluded because either position requires a certainty about the source of their absolute certanty that it is impossible to have.
The key difference is that those of faith are necessarily 1s whilst those that call themselves atheists would more likely describe themselves as 6.999999999Rs as they would generally accept that absolute certainty about anything requires the sort of faith that they oppose!!
(note this was 5 years ago)
Which seems to mirror my position on what "know" means: you seem to equate "know" with "absolute certainty" in that (your first ever) post.
Note that the quote from Jung does not refer to 100% certainty, it just says "I know"
The 7.0 atheist says "I know there is no God"
Straggles says "I know, even before doing it, that when I drop my pen it will drop as gravity predicts."
So why aren't you describing yourself as a 7.0 atheist, given your preferred watered down definition of "know"?
Can you enlighten us why 6.999999999Rs is not "know" as you want to use it?
(note to readers, the above was posted before Straggles was shown that
0.999999999Rs (meaning repeats infinitely) ≡ 1
Straggles writes:
The 0.99999~ = 1 ? thread, Message 58: I get all the arguments for 0.999R being entirely equalt to 1. But it still seems "wrong" that 0.999R is a whole number. Surely I am not alone in this intuitive feeling? Otherwise it wouldn't even be a topic worth highlighting.
Of course, this also means that 6.999R ≡ 7.0
Oh God. Please. Let's not go there. You know what I mean about the inherent impossibility of certainty in evidence based arguments just as well as I do.
So does "KNOW" mean high confidence with a dash of tentativeness ...
... or does "know" mean a level of certainty that cannot be logically attained in "evidence based arguments" (such as the age of the earth)?
You have changed the word "probability" to "possibility" in your post - Why?).
That is what was on the scale when I accessed it - I did not change it. It appears that the one from the Dawkins site (when I accessed it via google cache) differs from the one in wiki. I don't know why it is different, but I would not be surprised to see different versions in print either. I'm happy to go with probability if that makes it easier for you.
Note that the position being referenced states "100 per cent probability". Which is by definition absolute certainty is it not?
Yet he doesn't say certainty, so I also ask you, in return, if 100% probability (assuming, as it must in making any pretense of calculation, that the world was not created fully formed 1 second ago with subtly different physical laws that would change the probabilities) is as necessarily tentative as you want to make "know" or is it always 100% certain?
Because I am not claiming 100% Jungian certainty.
And yet Jung did not say 100% certainty, he just said "I know" -- the issue here is whether that "I know" means inherently 100% certainty or your watered down version -- here you are assuming that it meant 100% certainty -- at least it looks like that to me.
Nor did Dawkins say "100% Jungian certainty" he said "with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' " -- it appears you are changing the words again, words that are close but not quite the same:
quote:certainty - n 1. the condition of being certain 2. something established as certain or inevitable 3. for a certainty without doubt
I can be convinced but not 100% certain.
Did Dawkins imply that Jung's "know" meant 100% probability? -- it looks like that to me, but then I also have to ask, again, how certain that 100% probability is, (assuming, as it must in making any pretense of calculation, that the world was not created fully formed 1 second ago with subtly different physical laws that would change the probabilities) -- particularly if you are going to replace one word with the other.
Because I am not claiming 100% Jungian certainty.
Just 6.999999999Rs/7 (=99.99999999% without the "Rs" repeats, ≡100% with the repeats) certainty. Certainly if we use the two decimals given on the scale as the required significant figures accuracy, and round your position to those two decimals it comes out =7.0, yes? Or are you recanting?
But the real issue, the real question, is why you need 100% certainty here, and not elsewhere: aren't you equivocating between different definitions of "know"?
I am not claiming that we can know with absolute 100% Jungian certainty that the world was not created omphalistically in the recent past. I am not claiming to know with 100% Jungian certainty that the world was created fully formed 1 second ago with subtly different physical laws (esp relating to falling pens) to the ones we falsely remember.
The question is why you DON'T need 100% certainty here, and not then say "'I know there is no God" as well -- aren't you equivocating between definitions of "know"?
So why don't you use "know" in both cases to mean the same thing?
If you are going to have two meanings for a word and switch between them at your convenience and without clarification of which you mean at any given time, then you are equivocating, pure and simple.
If I am going to accept your definition, I need to know () when to use know(100%) and when to use know(99.99999999%) (or even know(51%). Can you know(49%)?). Where are the break-offs, what are the rules of usage?
Having trouble finding actual quotes instead of making them up?
Straggler: I know that Lord Voldemort doesn't exist.
Because it is a fantasy fiction novel with an author, a book classification as fantasy, and massive acknowledgment that it is fiction, so the evidence certainly shows it is fictional.
Please try a real position not a fake one.
Curiously, RAZD then criticises Straggler for expressing this long established tentativity.
Then why not apply that to "I know gods don't exist"?
I'm just trying to understand one "know" from the other.
quote:Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses" - theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong - without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.
We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. If you know of a different source of supernatural beings, then show us. Until then, you have not met the burden of proof required for you to claim Bluegenes hypothesis is wrong - all you have is an unsubstantiated counter-claim.
While this may have been a good line of attack, Zen Deist did not originally have to launch into counter claims at all! He was just criticizing the way this theory arrived. When a theory is proposed, the very 1st thing that must be shown is the theory, how it came to be. Theories have to be well-formed. They cannot be arbitrary wild claims or even mild claims. No. It is the BURDEN of the the person proposing the theory to provide good reason for it. If, after this first step has been reached - something that, seemingly, only the Gang of Four (bluegenes, Straggler, Modulous, Panda) have accepted blindly without the faintest breath of skepticism or agnosticism - if this step has been reached by a consensus of all stakeholders and there are subsequent troubles, then we can proceed along to your well-stated line of attack.
If a challenger's 1st objection is in the formulation of the theory, then the BURDEN of "proof" is on the person proposing the theory. To make it clearer, strike the dubious word "proof" for "providing sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence".
bluegenes has held up fairly well, but he has relied on the Gang of Four to do his homework & cheerleading quite a bit. Good for them - I would do no less. What he has not done is provided sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence for his theory. He has INADMISSABLE hearsay stories with their descent & modification & speciation. Meh. He has the relatively primitive tools of psychology, which basically detects that when brain patterns show the tendency to make things up, they will make things up. DUH. He has yet to describe the scientific equipment used to be able to detect a Supernatural Being OR by not detecting it, flick some kind of sensor off (or on, depending on the equipment's configuration) indicate that there was no Supernatural Being there.
I am still completely dumbfounded that nearly everyone on bluegenes' side seems to think that those who disagree with him must provide their side of the evidence FIRST - when all that was happening here was the opening door troubles. I am even more astonished that anyone has concluded Zen Deist has made any theoretical assertions that bluegenes theory or claim is factually wrong!
I am equally perplexed at this, but there is - even more to the point - the REST of what Truzzi said:
quote: In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesissaying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifacthe is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
So when I ask for the evidence and substantiation of the claim of having a theory and "plenty of evidence" to support it -- I am saying that the claim is NOT proven\demonstrated\supported sufficiently, and I am NOT saying that (or even addressing whether) it is false.
quote:Truzzi was an investigator of various protosciences and pseudosciences and, as fellow CSICOP cofounder Paul Kurtz dubbed him, "the skeptic's skeptic." He is credited with originating the oft-used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
... Skeptic's Dictionary memorialized Truzzi thus: Truzzi considered most skeptics to be pseudoskeptics, a term he coined to describe those who assume an occult or paranormal claim is false without bothering to investigate it. ...
eg - the alternate hypothesis for the same "INADMISSABLE hearsay stories with their descent & modification & speciation" is just brushed away, the comments about possible alternative means for getting the concepts (religious experience, etc) are just brushed away, rather than examined.
AND, to be clear, I do not need to provide substantiation for a claim that can be found copiously in literature, I just need to point out that it exists and that it has not been addressed in the development of the hypothesis ... and I have done that.
It's really that simple, and has been that simple from the beginning: show me the objective evidence, show me how it is a theory based on objective evidence, and not just a conjectural hypothesis based on confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Show me that documented possible alternatives do not apply, rather than just assume it.
That is how you do science rather than pseudoscience. If you can't do it then you do not have a scientific hypothesis.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty
Edited by Admin, : Make author of quote more clear.
I am not claiming that religious documents are not a source of knowledge about supernatural beings. I am claiming that we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings.
Without any testing of any of the religious documents to see if they are due to an alternative source.
Isn't that just ASSUMING that you "know with certainty" because you cherry pick your evidence according to confirmation bias?
RAZD writes:
Isn't it rather unscientific to just ignore vast potential resources that may already include falsification of the hypothesis? Or is it just assumed to be imagination?
If you think it is evidence then stop ignoring it. Falsify Bluegenes hypothesis.
To quote Marcello Truzzi:
quote:Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses" - theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong - without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.
We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. If you know of a different source of supernatural beings, then show us. Until then, you have not met the burden of proof required for you to claim Bluegenes hypothesis is wrong - all you have is an unsubstantiated counter-claim.
See Message 103 for my answer to this falsehood/misrepresentation/etc
So why did you clip the quote from the wiki article on Truzzi, while ignoring the actual quote that from Truzzi that actually applies, in favor of implying\saying something that does NOT apply?
quote: In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesissaying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifacthe is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
quote:Truzzi was an investigator of various protosciences and pseudosciences and, as fellow CSICOP cofounder Paul Kurtz dubbed him, "the skeptic's skeptic." He is credited with originating the oft-used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
... Skeptic's Dictionary memorialized Truzzi thus: Truzzi considered most skeptics to be pseudoskeptics, a term he coined to describe those who assume an occult or paranormal claim is false without bothering to investigate it. ...
Name a source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination.
Again, I refer you to religious documents for possible sources of that information -- perhaps you really should look into it, rather than assume that you can claim to know all the possible sources?
stalking, leaping and stumbling over silly stawmen
Hi Panda,
Since you have responded to the 2 replies made by Straggler but ignored the one I made, ...
Aw.... poor baby.
... I am left thinking that you accept most of the statements included in my post.
An example of what I think you have tacitly accepted:
Leaping to concussions again? Making false assumptions again?
As you can see from Message 103 and Message 104 that you have your answer, and that all you have done is misunderstood/misrepresented my position AND Truzzi, so by "stalking" you just end up, imho, looking foolish on two counts: (1) you were wrong and (2) you were answered.
... you have not met the burden of proof required for you to claim Bluegenes hypothesis is wrong ...
When you make a statement like this you should check your facts first, and you should be able to provide an actual quote of me actually making the claim YOU assert. Otherwise you are (a) attacking a strawman, and (b) making a silly mistake that is avoidable.
Curiously, I have asked you before to actually quote me when you make up stuff like this, but you have been unable to -- a tacit admission, imho , that you are making it up, rather than representing my position accurately.
To understand a position you need to be able to paraphrase it accurately. If you paraphrase it inaccurately and then portray\attack that innaccurate strawman in a post, you end up in the position you are in here.
Another foolish logical blunder? Or are you just using lax in terminology and then basing your argument on your lax terminology?
Sorry - I just noticed... Lord Voldemort is not a fantasy fiction novel. He is mentioned in a fantasy fiction novel. Are you claiming that being mentioned in a fantasy fiction novel proves he is not real?
Just for being "mentioned" no, but Voldemort is not just "mentioned" -- he is a central character, a magical character, created by the author, in a fantasy fiction novel series.
Are you claiming that a magical character, created by the author, in a fantasy fiction novel series, central to the fantasy storyline, is real or has the potential to be real?
Fantasy Books vs Religious Texts, fake tests vs real tests
Hi Straggles,
Hope I don't annoy Panda by replying to you.
(provocative comment hidden)
What, aside from human belief that one is true and the other is not, distinguishes the supernatural concepts contained in religious documents from the supernatural concepts contained in fictional novels?
It really astounds me that you ask this question, when this seemingly minor difference is critical to actually being able to substantiate the hypothetical conjecture.
There is a possibility that "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" are (may be) based on real experiences, while the "supernatural concepts contained in fictional novels" are known a priori to be fictional, and cannot rationally be considered supernatural beings.
What you display, by asking such a question, is that you are just assuming that all "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" are fictional without actually determining that this is so.
To substantiate {your (bluegenes et als)} assertion that {all supernatural beings are fictional} you need to investigate and test ones that MAY be real instead of pretending that fictional characters, known a priori to be fictional, fill the bill.
When you pretend that fictional characters are evidence of your conjectural hypothesis you end up making silly logical conclusions like:
premise 1: Lord Voldemort is a fictional supernatural character premise 2: all supernatural beings are fictional characters conclusion: therefore Lord Voldemort is a supernatural being(1)
or
premise 1: Dick Tracy is a private eye premise 2: Dick Tracy is a fictional character conclusion: therefore all private eyes are fictional characters
or
premise 1: some supernatural characters are known to be fictional premise 2: Lord Voldemort is a fictional supernatural character conclusion: therefore all supernatural beings are fictional characters
As you can (or should be able to) see the logical structure of these constructions is terminally flawed.
You can't start from evidence of fiction to show that something else is fiction, as that something else isn't tested, and therefore the hypothetical conjecture isn't tested in any way shape or form.
You do not need to investigate "supernatural concepts contained in fictional novels" to see whether or not they are fictional -- that is a given, readily conceded, fact.
Humans are capable of creating fiction: sadly, for you, that does not mean that all human concepts are fiction.
You DO need to investigate "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" to see whether or not they are fictional, rather than just assume that this is the case.
That is what distinguishes real science from pseudoscience and what distinguishes real skepticism from pseudo skepticism.
Enjoy.
Notes:
(1) - Amusingly, you can actually find several statements with this type of false\invalid conclusion in posts by bluegenes on the GD thread, and by people on the Peanut Gallery thread.
Edited by Zen Deist, : hiding provocative comment, leaving it for history
... because your arguments lead people to the conclusion that you believe that there are cases where less evidence means greater likelihood of being real.
To be specific, though, my argument is: where there is less evidence contradicting something being real, there is more possibility of it being real; where there is more evidence contradicting something being real, there is less possibility of it being real; where there is less confirming evidence of something being real there is less possibility of it being real; where there is more confirming evidence of something being real there is more possibility of it being real:
relative likelihood of being real
more evidence
less evidence
Confirming
more possibility
less possibility
Contradicting
less possibility
more possibility
(love the db table code)
And these can be combined:
when there is more confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there is even greater possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
when there is more contradicting evidence and less confirming evidence, there is even lesser possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
when there is less confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there are some conflicting possibilities (and some uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not), and
when there is more confirming evidence and more contracting evidence, there are more conflicting possibilities (and more uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not).
But if someone mentioned someone you'd never heard of before and for whom you had no evidence in any direction, you would conclude it's more likely he's real than Lord Voldemort. I have to agree with this logic.
Yes, that would be a (3) - neutral evidence, some uncertainty - vs a (2) - negative evidence, more certainty.
But it would be nice if some clarity could emerge before you and Straggler set records for longest ongoing online discussion and for the discussion spread across the most threads. Hopefully someone will have a stroke of inspiration.
Indeed it would be nice. This is one (prime?) reason I normally hesitate to reply to Straggles - he and I tend to be compulsive responders. I keep waiting for the light of reason to shine down through the clouds of obfuscations. If someone can provide that inspired stroke of logic and reason, then please do so.
Note to others: if I "acknowledge" your posts it is either because (a) the answer has been provided previously, (b) it is provided on another post to someone else, so check them, or (c) it doesn't need\deserve a response (d) it is essentially a rhetorical or informational post, or (e) that I have other posts with what I consider higher priorities to address. If I "acknowledge" AND "cheer" then I agree with you.
So rather than confront the inconsistencies in your own position ...
The typical ad hominem opening gambit ... even on a purported peace offering post.
When I take the time to show that these "inconsistencies" are actually straw men arguments, you ignore it and later repeat your barrage of insinuations and disparaging comments.
And you wonder why I don't like to answer your posts.
So rather than confront the inconsistencies in your own position ...
Straw man, straw, straw man my old banjo . . . ♫ ♪
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.
All your little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities of evidence being false are ALL in the area outside the blue circle.
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.
Being tentative about any one (after one after one etc ad naseum) of thousands of such concepts, is conceptually no different than science being tentative about ALL of them.
When we come to the confidence we can have in this basic foundational assumption of science, it is the confidence that comes from the massive mountain ranges of tested data that all appear to work together to produce a cohesive, consilient and comprehensive picture\map\description that is massively cross-connected and interlocked.
If the evidence is a lie, then it is an extremely, extraordinarily, well constructed lie, but none the less ... this is always a possibility.
Do you agree? yes or no
Confidence
You've posted copies of my Table of Confidence in your attempts to show that my positions are not consistent. This is an updated version:
quote:
Note that this scale relies on the scientific method to reach levels III and IV, and both of those require objective empirical evidence. In addition, each level leads to the next higher level as more evidence and information becomes available and stricter standards of testing are applied (ie, are falsifiable).
Levels III and IV start with objective evidence of specific instances where the concept/s are known to be valid (positive test), where IV has been tested and validated. These compare with scientific hypothesis and scientific theory.
In this regard evidence for something needs to be objective empirical evidence that positively supports a scientific hypothesis, and evidence against a particular proposition would be evidence that invalidates it.
We can also add the table from the discussion with Percy (Message 110):
quote:To be specific, though, my argument is: where there is less evidence contradicting something being real, there is more possibility of it being real; where there is more evidence contradicting something being real, there is less possibility of it being real; where there is less confirming evidence of something being real there is less possibility of it being real; where there is more confirming evidence of something being real there is more possibility of it being real:
relative likelihood of being real
more evidence
less evidence
Confirming
more possibility
less possibility
Contradicting
less possibility
more possibility
And these can be combined:
when there is more confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there is even greater possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
when there is more contradicting evidence and less confirming evidence, there is even lesser possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
when there is less confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there are some conflicting possibilities (and some uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not), and
when there is more confirming evidence and more contracting evidence, there are more conflicting possibilities (and more uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not).
In fact they need to be combined to have a coherent picture of the relative likelihood of being real. Failure to consider contradictory evidence while focusing solely on confirmatory evidence means you can have a false\incomplete picture.
The scales of evidence from "more" to "less" can of course be extended, but the purpose is to show relative categories in four basic areas. We can have medium and high confidence in (1) and (2) and little confidence in (3) because there is insufficient evidence either way, and we can have very little confidence in (4) where massive conflict shows that there is likely a conceptual error in the hypothesis or the testing method.
We could inject 'more' and 'less' "subjective" evidence between extremes of 'more' and 'less' "objective" evidence, and you still end up with a relative picture of concepts.
All of these constructions are consistent with my posts, especially the ones presenting these constructions, and ones for the age of the earth (presenting evidence that shows that it is well over the maximum estimate of any YEC model concept), and the like . . .
Do you agree? yes or no
Belief
You have also posted copies of my Modified Dawkins scale. This is the updated version of that scale that is generalized:
Without sufficient supporting or contradicting evidence:
Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty(a)
Strong acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty(a)
Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncerrtain(b)
Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty(a)
(a) - logically invalid positions (unless supported by substantiating tested objective empirical evidence - strong conviction in the validity of evolution is based on the massive amount of objective evidence and testing). (b) - logically valid positions (if not contradicted by tested objective empirical evidence - continued belief in a falsified concept is delusion).
Now it I wanted to be pedantically consistent this scale would also have "medium acceptance" and "medium skepticism" to match the levels of confidence table, but these are relative categories.
Curiously, I see no inconsistencies between this scale and the previous sections.
Do you agree? yes or no
A weak acceptance of the possible existence of god/s is consistent with low confidence concepts, where there is unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion etc. involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid.
Do you agree? yes or no
A strong acceptance of the likelihood of the scientific theory of evolution or the age of the earth is consistent with high confidence concepts, where there is validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
Do you agree? yes or no
Concepts regarding beliefs do not necessarily assume that all evidence represents reality, the question is a little more open, a little more vague in that regard, but these concepts still lie with the red area:
A weak acceptance of the possible existence of god/s is consistent with low confidence concepts, where there is unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion etc. involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid ...
... coupled with a strong acceptance of the likelihood of the scientific theory of evolution or the age of the earth is consistent with high confidence concepts, where there is validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence ...
... can exist within the blue zone, where the evidence is assumed to represent reality, without any necessary contradiction from one to the other.
Do you agree? yes or no
If you agree to all of these, then we can move on to the issue of impediments to understanding, before we get to your questions.
) when to use know(100%) and when to use know(99.99999999%) (or even know(51%). Can you know(49%)?). Where are the break-offs, what are the rules of usage?
™ Version 4.2
