dogged badgering does not add to the debate just to the wasted bandwidth
Hi Straggler, picking up on some tid-bits:
Message 136: Re: Fantasy Books vs Religious Texts, fake tests vs real tests
RAZD writes:
Just to be clear fictional novels are fiction by definition, that is fact.
Is it? Who decides what is "fiction" and what isn't? I put it to you that the prefix "fictional" simply refers to what people believe.
The prefix "fictional" doesn't make something non-existent by definition. Voldermort (for example) is NOT non-existent by definition. Indeed as PaulK has pointed out it could conceivably be the case that Dumbledore has magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts.
There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable. So why are you such a "pseudoskeptic" with regard to the existence of Voldermort?
A pseudoskeptic is someone who says that a concept is wrong and does not provide any evidence or information to substantiate that position. I've presented some information in this regard already, but here is more:
The objective, empirical, repeatable, evidence is that (a) the books are fantasy fiction and (b) that the characters in them are fictional, supported by (c) the acknowledgement by the author that they are, in fact, fictions, and also supported by (d) the classification as fantasy fiction in book stores and libraries, and finally, (e) tested by the reactions of people reading the stories that believe it is a fact that they are fiction rather than real documentaries or narratives.
Do a search and see if you can find any claim that Voldemort is real, versus:
quote:In a 2001 interview, Rowling said Voldemort was invented as a nemesis for Harry Potter, the main protagonist of the series, and she intentionally did not flesh out Voldemort's backstory at first ...
quote:Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by the British author J. K. Rowling. The books chronicle the adventures of the adolescent wizard Harry Potter and his best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The main story arc concerns Harry's quest to overcome the evil dark wizard Lord Voldemort, whose aim is to subjugate non-magical people, conquer the wizarding world, and destroy all those who stand in his way, especially Harry Potter.
This is objective evidence that the stories and characters are fiction.
Then we have inferred testing of the concept that the books are fictional and the characters are fiction by the way people react to them:
do people buy the books as fiction or as real stories? Fictional Real
do people reading the books think the characters are fictional or real? Fictional Real
has anyone taken any precautions in case the books\characters are real? Yes None known
due to the high interest in the novels, would any group making such preparations be noticed and reported on? Likely yes Not likely
There is no record of anyone thinking they are anything but fiction that I can find.
quote:Since the 30 June 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide.[2] The series has also had some share of criticism, including concern for the increasingly dark tone. As of June 2011[update], the book series has sold about 450 million copies and has been translated into 67 languages,[3][4] and the last four books consecutively set records as the fastest-selling books in history.
So that amounts to at least 450 million inferred tests of the book being fantasy fiction and that the characters are fictional, with no known\reported contraditions.
Nor has any contradictory evidence (that the characters should be considered real) been presented, so that position is not supported.
quote:
450 million bits of evidence that the book is a fantasy fiction, and that the characters are fictional, and 0 contradictory bits of evidence
There is way much more evidence that the books and characters are fictional than that they are real, and there is no contradictory evidence for this position, therefore it is logically way more likely that the books and characters are really fiction.
There is so much evidence for the books being fantasy that we can regard this as an accepted FACT by virtually all people.
Do you agree? Yes No
Message 136: ... So why are you such a "pseudoskeptic" with regard to the existence of Voldermort?
But I'm not pseudoskeptical here, because I have cited evidence supporting my comments -- you've misused (again?) the term "pseudoskeptic" here.
Message 150: So Some Untestable Propositions Can Be Dismissed?
RAZD on Voldermort writes:
Forget the IPU, you have shown that you cannot determine that a documented fictional character is actually fictional and not supernatural.
You cannot test the Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition. No. But I would vehemently deny that this is any rational basis upon which to consider Voldermort anything other than made-up.
So where do you put Voldermort on your scale then RAZ?
For the record I'm a 6 (+ some). Does this make me a Voldermort pseudoskeptic?
What are you on your own scale with regard to Voldermort?
Some "Untestable Propositions" may be ignored, yes. Particularly when the fall in the "so what" or "known fictional" category or when they fall outside the a priori assumptions.
The rest of this post is now impatiently augmented by ....
Message 153: One More Thing - Voldermort Skepticism!!
Oh and one other thing - Your lack of response to Message 150 has me seriously worried about your honesty/sanity here.
Please don't even bother to continue anything here with me unless you are prepared to actually confirm that it is NOT pseudoskeptical to take the following position with regard to the non-existence of Lord Voldermort:
RAZD's scale writes:
6. Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
I really just could not take anyone seriously who professes to be anything other than strongly skeptical of the actual existence of Voldermort.
My keyboard just isn't up to the mirth based spillages it will be subjected to.....
Ah the fallacy of consequences ... wasting bandwidth without adding to the debate ...
If you are unwilling or unable to explicitly state where you place yourself on your own scale with respect to the following untestable proposition please cease any further participation in this thread.
The Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition - Dumbledore magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable.
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)
If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected (i.e. at least a 6 on the scale above) regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.
If however you are unwilling or unable to explicitly take such a position, if you are going to insist on absolute agnosticism with regard to Lord Voldermort or refuse to explicitly state a position because you cannot do so without contradicting yourselves, then I can only conclude that you are either mad or dishonest and I have nothing more to say to you on the nature of science.
... more fallacy of consequences ... still wasting bandwidth and not adding to the debate ... FURTHER impatiently augmented by this message:
As per Message 153 I am not even going to bother talking to someone about the nature of science unless they are able to confirm that an atheistic stance towards the untestable Dumbledore mind manipulation proposition is rationally justified.
Will you unequivocally agree that (at least) a 6 position is rationally justified despite this proposition being untestable?
RAZD's scale writes:
6. Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
If in a thread supposedly about scientific knowledge we cannot all agree that Lord Voldermort is all-but-certainly made-up then it is time to call the men in white coats to take someone away.
If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.
... And even MORE fallacy of consequences, wasted bandwidth and repetitions of arguments ... And you wonder why I say you badger people: here you have posted a number of virtually identical posts, in increasingly strident tones, before I've had an opportunity to reply -- after I said I was busy. Sheesh.
It is a fact that the books and characters are fictional.
Do you disagree? Yes No
But there is a better way, imho, to go about this scale testing fixation of yours -- forget the silly "Dawkins Scale" or any version of it (I'm willing to chuck mine) that relies on similar subjective judgments, and instead let's just go ahead and use the new and improvedRAZD\Straggler Concept Scale that we have agreed to:
This scale has objective criteria for each of the different levels, rather than subjective judgments.
Because of the strong evidence I have previously cited for the whole set of books and the characters in them to be considered fantasy fiction as a fact, and given the absence of any contradictory evidence to this, I can safely take a (+4) stance on the concept that the books are indeed fantasy fiction novels and that the characters are fictions. I consider this a fact, and have said so.
Do you disagree that this is a fact? Yes No
Fiction is, in fact, fiction.
Now you can invert that to apply to any argument that is an inverse argument, or alternative concepts that are contradicted by the same information and evidence.
Message 152: Re: A Constructive Approach to "Knowing" - Examples NOT Abstractions
Well whenever you do get round to replying more fully it would be appreciated if you avoided long winded abstractions and repetitions of your impressively formatted but relentlessly changing charts and scales.
Instead pick an actual concrete example (e.g. the age of the Earth) and simply state:
What the conclusion regarding the actual age of the Earth is.
To what extent this conclusion can be taken as high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality.
To what extent this positive conclusion regarding reality necessitates the rejection of untestable mutually exclusive alternative conclusions about reality.
RAZD writes:
I don't feel the terminology of "mutually exclusive alternatives" is accurate -- it implies a dichotomy that isn't necessarily applicable or necessary to imply.
If you are going to conclude that the age of the Earth is billions of years old and that this is a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality you cannot correspondingly conclude that Last Thursdayism - or any other recent omphalisms - are anything other than a description of reality that is improbable. At least not without some baseless assumptions and semantic games.
But we both know you won't engage in such things. Right RAZ?
RAZD writes:
The inverse of a concept should logically have inverse likelihoods or possibilities.
Then make sure you actually address that explicitly through example rather than by chart, table or abstraction.
More pointless badgering that detracts from the debate rather than provide constructive discussion.
The evidence is assumed to represent reality. The conclusions based on that assumption do not prove, show or even begin to demonstrate that the assumption is true,
This specific point is addressed in Message 170 in detail. Specifically it proves that trying to use the tested results based on an assumption, to then be evidence that the assumption has truth to it, is a false idea.
quote:If these results apply outside their respective "blue" areas, then we have:
1 + 1 ≠ 1
*AND*
1 + 1 ≡ 1
and because both cannot be true outside their respective blue areas at the same time, we have an irreconcilable, unavoidable contradiction.
&there4 The results are dependent on the definitions or a priori assumptions, and the definitions or a priori assumptions are NOT proven by the internal consistency and proven results of the maths that are based on the a priori assumptions. That would be circular reasoning.
Absolute confidence inside a blue area does not - cannot - translate into any confidence outside the blue area. QED
NOTE THAT THIS IS MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN.
Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no
Just perusing the rest of your little construction.
RAZD writes:
Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it?
Yes - There very much is.
RAZD writes:
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.
All your little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities......
"Imaginary".....? How do you know they are imaginary? Have you tested them? Did your mask just slip?
You are really grasping at straws now.
I looked at Message 42 long ago, and saw you making a number of silly assertions, once again, that you claim provide you with substantiation for your beliefs. It's self-indulgent shinola and it is pointless:
Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it?
Yes - There very much is.
RAZD writes:
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.
... this is a road to nowhere.
Ignoring the point that your Message 42 is self-indulgent shinola ...
... are you saying that once you or I and any scientist assumes that the evidence represents reality, that you are NOT in the same boat? Yes No
Or are you saying that all your {little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities of evidence being false,} are NOT all in the area outside the blue circle? Yes No
Are you saying that you DON'T assume that the evidence does not lie? Yes No
Detail what specifically do you not agree with in this statement:
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.
There are three sentences there, it should be easy for you to answer simply and clearly.
Why are you being so evasive about answering and disruptive about cooperation?
Can we get back to cooperation? I have very limited time in the next few days, and I would prefer not to have to read or consider responding to repetitious, disruptive or irrelevant posts that don't advance the debate.
Enjoy Notes: (1) - perhaps this should say :
IV. Absolute Confidence Concepts
Established, or proven.
It is a fact.
We should probably also say that
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
Straggles violates board rules to paste another pointless post.
Please see see Message 190
RAZD writes:
Correct. When you make the assumption that the evidence truthfully represents reality, then you safely, unconditionally, justifiably, ignore any and all concepts related to the evidence being a lie.
See Message 42
This is already answered by Message 205, meaning waiting just a little bit you would find your repetition here is completely unnecessary, pointless and already refuted.
Of course Message 205 is significantly cluttered by including each similar post by Straggles when ONE would be sufficient.
Any more such posts will be safely ignored as irrelevant, and I will choose which ones to reply to based on whether they move the debate forward or not.
Just part of this post is a point you really need to consider, study, and learn.
quote:This specific point is addressed in Message 170 in detail. Specifically it proves that trying to use the tested results based on an assumption, to then be evidence that the assumption has truth to it, is a false idea.
quote:If these results apply outside their respective "blue" areas, then we have:
1 + 1 ≠ 1
vs
1 + 1 ≡ 1
and because both cannot be true outside their respective blue areas we have an irreconcilable contradiction.
&there4 The results are dependent on the definitions or a priori assumptions and the definitions or a priori assumptions are not proven by the internal consistency and proven results of the maths based on the a priori assumptions.
Absolute confidence inside a blue area does not - cannot - translate into any confidence outside the blue area. QED
NOTE THAT THIS IS MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN.
Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no
This is a level IV Absolute Confidence Concept.
So do you agree with this:
(1) - perhaps this should say :
IV. Absolute Confidence Concepts
Established, or proven.
It is a fact.
We should probably also say that
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
quote:The characters in the bible are real, supported by the acknowledgement by the authors ...
Except that we do not know the original authors of the original narratives, nor what the original narratives said, nor what the authors claimed about those narratives.
quote: ... that they are real and tested by the reactions of people reading the bible that believe it is a fact that they are real rather than fiction.
Using his own logic he should be confident that God exists.
Which in this case is contradicted by some people that believe it is fiction.
And it is contradicted by variations in the narratives with different religious sects and people that believe god/s exist but not the way portrayed in the bible.
And it is contradicted in some parts by tested objective empirical evidence -- ie that there was no WW flood.
When we look at the possibilities:
the bible is 100% true
the bible is partly true partly fantasy
the bible is 100% fantasy
The tested objective contradictory evidence means the first possibility is (high confidence) very unlikely, but the others are still possible.
You haven't used MY logic but a parody of it. Which should be obvious.
This is a consistent pattern with you, and one reason I normally do not respond to you anymore.
In regard to PaulK's assertions:
When this was put forward earlier, I raised two points against it. The first was that we could not exclude the logical possibility of J K Rowling having "inside knowledge" - perhaps unknowingly.
When we talk about the burden of proof, when someone (paraphrased) says "I have written a fictional fantasy with fictional characters that I have invented" -- they bear no burden of proof to show that this is the case.
When someone (paraphrased) says "but they could be true" -- then they are making a claim that needs to be substantiated. So far not one whit of evidence has been provided to cause anyone to think there is any validity in the claim that the stories or characters could be true. This is a Zero Confidence claim.
Thus Zen Deist has still offered no empirical evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist and has in fact come to that conclusion by implicit a priori reasoning.
The burden of proof falls on the one claiming it is true, and not on the one that says the claim has not been substantiated, especially while the claim that it is fictional IS substantiated, rather than derived from a priori assumptions.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : added response to non-reply ad hominem
If you find Message 205 difficult to read, and you have trouble following it, you have only yourself to blame: instead of ONE simple post you repeated your request several times with several "spandrels" that did not add to or further the debate, they just obscured your original post. Especially when they were piled one on top of the other in quick succession at a time when I said I have a heavy work load AND poor connections.
This is already answered by Message 205, meaning waiting just a little bit you would find your repetition here is completely unnecessary, pointless and already refuted.
Of course Message 205 is significantly cluttered by including each similar post by Straggles when ONE would be sufficient.
Any more such posts will be safely ignored as irrelevant, and I will choose which ones to reply to based on whether they move the debate forward or not.
Emphasis added. The point of that post was to drive home to you that such behavior is counterproductive: YOU were being counterproductive, YOU have cluttered this thread with unnecessary posts. It's like you went on a sudden angry rampage when patience would serve you better. For goodness sake get a grip.
You seem to expect me to answer each and every one of you pet peeve pecadillio posts, yet you blithely ignore my posts that DO answer and address them and the ones that discuss the issues. If I don't answer ONE of your endless repetitions of the same argument then any answers to others are ignored when you haul it out to ask me to answer it. This is dishonest. It IS answered, and you can READ it. The fact that you (obviously) haven't read (the alternative is that you haven't understood) Message 205 is NOT MY PROBLEM.
Please either demonstrate your sanity/honesty or cease participation in this thread
Can I ask the same of you? That you behave sanely and respectfully, and deal with the issues rather than venting your anger in unreasonable ways?
I thought we were making great progress with cooperation, and then suddenly you go all medieval on me.
I think I know the reason, but that is irrelevant.
Read Message 205, and if you still have a question when you are done, then ask me. Politely. No theatrics.
who's at fault for message 205? it's a response . . . to badgering & stalking
Hi Percy,
Given the length of his posts, is there anything RAZD hasn't already said? I'm curious, how many people actually read all of Message 205? Anyone? Are there many who share my objection to these repetitive hashes of text and quotes of things already said many times?
Which, sadly, is the POINT of Message 205 -- that the repetitive "hashes of text and quotes of things already said many times" by STRAGGLER are the real problem here.
Look at Message 205 and you will see that the reason it is so long is because each of Straggles' requests for the same information is repeated verbatum -- so you can see that each repetition is unnecessary -- and you will ALSO note that they all occur in a short time span when I was not on board and could not have responded to the FIRST post. Not only that, he has peppered posts to other people with insinuations that are disparaging and false. It's like he went on a mad stalking rampage.
He piles on requests for reply and then ignores one when he gets it, then asks again. See Message 215. That ain't right, that ain't honest.
Nobody should have to put up with that kind of aggressive irrational stalking/badgering and abusive behavior in a debate.
Are those involved in this ongoing multi-thread discussion determined to continue until the other side says, "Oh, I guess you're right." Face reality, it ain't gonna happen.
I suggest you look at who is being the most disruptive on this thread as the culprit of making it multi-threaded and long-winded and disrupted by repeated posts that do not further the debate on the issues.
Re: Scientific Explanations and a priori assumptions
Hi Catholic Scientist,
Here is a summary - Rather than subjectively picking and choosing which baseless but untestable propositions can be rejected, which need be assumed a-priori and which demand the RAZDian brand of absolute agnosticism why not take the scientific approach and treat all such propositions equally and consistently?
Yeah, forget about 'em and don't even address them!
Or, curiously, just safely, consistently, ignore them, because they are already outside the bounds of the a priori assumptions of science. We already assume they do not apply to scientific studies, so why does Straggles need to be continually, incredulously, dredging them up after this has been pointed out?
Do you ever wonder why it is always Straggles that brings these up? Why he needs to post false straw man ("RAZDian brand of absolute agnosticism"(1)) positions rather than just simply address the issues? Why he is so angry and aggressive about it?
No, not in the colloquial sense, but from a scientific stance, these propositions are simply ignored, not really rejected.
Correct. When you make the assumption that the evidence truthfully represents reality, then you safely, unconditionally, justifiably, ignore any and all concepts related to the evidence being a lie..
I honestly don't understand why Straggles STILL has a problem with this.
Getting back to sanity ... and maybe some cooperation
Hi Straggles,
If in a thread supposedly about scientific knowledge we cannot all agree that Lord Voldermort is all-but-certainly made-up then it is time to call the men in white coats to take someone away.
If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.
Amusingly, I fully agree that we should set this aside, because (as I have previously said) it is a fact that this is a fictional character, created by the author of a series of fantasy fiction books.
Message 205: The objective, empirical, repeatable, evidence is that (a) the books are fantasy fiction and (b) that the characters in them are fictional, supported by (c) the acknowledgement by the author that they are, in fact, fictions, and also supported by (d) the classification as fantasy fiction in book stores and libraries, and finally, (e) tested by the reactions of people reading the stories that believe it is a fact that they are fiction rather than real documentaries or narratives.
Do a search and see if you can find any claim that Voldemort is real, versus:
quote:In a 2001 interview, Rowling said Voldemort was invented as a nemesis for Harry Potter, the main protagonist of the series, and she intentionally did not flesh out Voldemort's backstory at first ...
quote:Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by the British author J. K. Rowling. The books chronicle the adventures of the adolescent wizard Harry Potter and his best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The main story arc concerns Harry's quest to overcome the evil dark wizard Lord Voldemort, whose aim is to subjugate non-magical people, conquer the wizarding world, and destroy all those who stand in his way, especially Harry Potter.
This is objective evidence that the stories and characters are fiction.
Then we have inferred testing of the concept that the books are fictional and the characters are fiction by the way people react to them:
do people buy the books as fiction or as real stories? Fictional Real
do people reading the books think the characters are fictional or real? Fictional Real
has anyone taken any precautions in case the books\characters are real? Yes None known
due to the high interest in the novels, would any group making such preparations be noticed and reported on? Likely yes Not likely
There is no record of anyone thinking they are anything but fiction that I can find.
quote:Since the 30 June 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide.[2] The series has also had some share of criticism, including concern for the increasingly dark tone. As of June 2011[update], the book series has sold about 450 million copies and has been translated into 67 languages,[3][4] and the last four books consecutively set records as the fastest-selling books in history.
So that amounts to at least 450 million inferred tests of the book being fantasy fiction and that the characters are fictional, with no known\reported contraditions.
Nor has any contradictory evidence (that the characters should be considered real) been presented, so that position is not supported.
450 million bits of evidence that the book is a fantasy fiction, and that the characters are fictional, and 0 contradictory bits of evidence
There is way much more evidence that the books and characters are fictional than that they are real, and there is no contradictory evidence for this position, therefore it is logically way more likely that the books and characters are really fiction.
There is so much evidence for the books being fantasy that we can regard this as an accepted FACT by virtually all people.
Do you agree? Yes No
But there is a better way, imho, to go about this scale testing fixation of yours -- forget the silly "Dawkins Scale" or any version of it (I'm willing to chuck mine) that relies on similar subjective judgments, and instead let's just go ahead and use the new and improvedRAZD\Straggler Concept Scale that we have agreed to:
This scale has objective criteria for each of the different levels, rather than subjective judgments.
Because of the strong evidence I have previously cited for the whole set of books and the characters in them to be considered fantasy fiction as a fact, and given the absence of any contradictory evidence to this, I can safely take a (+4) stance on the concept that the books are indeed fantasy fiction novels and that the characters are fictions. I consider this a fact, and have said so.
When this was put forward earlier, I raised two points against it. The first was that we could not exclude the logical possibility of J K Rowling having "inside knowledge" - perhaps unknowingly.
When we talk about the burden of proof, when someone (paraphrased) says "I have written a fictional fantasy with fictional characters that I have invented" -- they bear no burden of proof to show that this is the case.
When someone (paraphrased) says "but they could be true" -- then they are making a claim that needs to be substantiated. So far, not one whit of evidence has been provided to cause anyone to think there is any validity in the claim that the stories or characters could be true. This is a Zero Confidence claim.
Thus Zen Deist has still offered no empirical evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist and has in fact come to that conclusion by implicit a priori reasoning.
The burden of proof falls on the one claiming it is true, and not on the one that says the claim has not been substantiated, especially while the claim that it is fictional IS substantiated, rather than derived from a priori assumptions.
There is no evidence that the fantasy fiction series and characters should be considered anything but fictional stories and fictional characters.
Do you agree or disagree? Agree Disagree
Another issue I have asked you about is this slight modification to the scale:
Message 206: more cooperation + less nonsense = constructive
So do you agree with this:
(1) - perhaps this should say :
IV. Absolute Confidence Concepts
Established, or proven.
It is a fact.
We should probably also say that
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
High Confidence Concepts - are empirically tested
This would give us:
as a change to the concept table?
Do you agree or disagree with these changes? Agree Disagree
When we look at this table and the massive evidence presented above, can we not say:
It is a fact(a) that the books and characters are fictional.
and note that is a Level IV Absolute Confidence Concept ...
... or should we say this is a Level IV Extreme Confidence Concept to include a touch of scientific tentativity?
Do you disagree? Yes No
... Or are you going to argue for some "Stragglerian absolute ignosticism" here?
Enjoy.
Notes:
(a) - especially if we use the scientific definition of "fact"
Hi Straggles, still having some reading comprehension problems?
I really have nothing more to say to you until you can demonstrate your sanity/honesty by explicitly denouncing something untestable on your own much cited terms. I.e. explicitly on your own scale.
See Message 190. If you aren't willing or aren't able to reply to that post with an explicit number based answer for some reason please can I request that you just stop participation in this thread.
Curiously, I have answered this in Message 205 and this was also noted in Message 206 and I have summarized my answer in Message 220 and again in Message 224 that you have responded to here.
Here it is again, with just my comments excerpted (read Message 224 for the details):
quote:Amusingly, I fully agree that we should set this aside, because (as I have previously said) it is a fact that this is a fictional character, created by the author of a series of fantasy fiction books.
This is objective evidence that the stories and characters are fiction.
Then we have inferred testing of the concept that the books are fictional and the characters are fiction by the way people react to them:
There is no record of anyone thinking they are anything but fiction that I can find.
So that amounts to at least 450 million inferred tests of the book being fantasy fiction and that the characters are fictional, with no known\reported contraditions.
Nor has any contradictory evidence (that the characters should be considered real) been presented, so that position is not supported.
450 million bits of evidence that the book is a fantasy fiction, and that the characters are fictional, and 0 contradictory bits of evidence
There is way much more evidence that the books and characters are fictional than that they are real, and there is no contradictory evidence for this position, therefore it is logically way more likely that the books and characters are really fiction.
There is so much evidence for the books being fantasy that we can regard this as an accepted FACT by virtually all people.
Do you agree? Yes No
But there is a better way, imho, to go about this scale testing fixation of yours -- forget the silly "Dawkins Scale" or any version of it (I'm willing to chuck mine) that relies on similar subjective judgments, and instead let's just go ahead and use the new and improvedRAZD\Straggler Concept Scale that we have agreed to:
This scale has objective criteria for each of the different levels, rather than subjective judgments.
Because of the strong evidence I have previously cited for the whole set of books and the characters in them to be considered fantasy fiction as a fact, and given the absence of any contradictory evidence to this, I can safely take a (+4) stance on the concept that the books are indeed fantasy fiction novels and that the characters are fictions. I consider this a fact, and have said so.
Do you disagree that this is a fact? Yes No
When someone (paraphrased) says "but they could be true" -- then they are making a claim that needs to be substantiated. So far, not one whit of evidence has been provided to cause anyone to think there is any validity in the claim that the stories or characters could be true. This is a Zero Confidence claim.
There is no evidence that the fantasy fiction series and characters should be considered anything but fictional stories and fictional characters.
Do you agree or disagree? Agree Disagree
When we look at this table(1) and the massive evidence presented above, can we not say:
It is a fact(a) that the books and characters are fictional.
and note that is a Level IV Absolute Confidence Concept ...
... or should we say this is a Level IV Extreme Confidence Concept to include a touch of scientific tentativity?
Do you disagree? Yes No
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that we can consider it a FACT that this fantasy fiction series and the fantasy fiction characters in it are indeed FICTION -- with at least the confidence that we have in any scientific fact?
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that anyone considering it a FACT would place that concept as a "1" on the silly Dawkins scale that you are so incredibly attached to and enamored of? -- with at least the confidence that we have in any scientific fact?
Enjoy
Notes:
(1) - The RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale (rev1) (a) - especially if we use the scientific definition of "fact"
Moving forward ... and maybe some additional cooperation
Hi Straggles,
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that The RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale is a much better scale to use, as it relies on objective criteria, than the Dawkins scale, which relies on subjective judgments and interpretations?
Now, I have proposed a number of adjustments to the scale, so let me summarize them here:
should we change the top level to IV. Extreme Confidence Concept, to include a touch of scientific tentativity, and then be able to include scientific laws in this category?
should we change IV. Absolute Extreme Confidence Concepts to read
Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven to be true. (as opposed to "Proven")
It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact. (as opposed to "The truth is known")
should we say that:
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
High Confidence Concepts - are empirically tested
This would give us the following for revision 1 of the scale:
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE with these changes?
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that this is more universally applicable than the Dawkins Scale?
Enjoy
Notes: (1) - using the scientific definition of "fact" with scientific tentativity included.
Nope, same old scale, incorporating your amendment, with some proposed minor modifications for your review. Please review Message 233 and see if they are improvements or not. Let me know eh? I really believe we can reach a common agreement here.
See Message 190 for the "Hogwarts Hypothesis" if you have forgotten what that is.
See Message 231 for your answer to this and to Message 232: failure to read a response does not mean it was not made. Failure to understand it may be a different issue.
It looks like Panda seems to put himself in the curious position of disagreeing with you ("If in a thread supposedly about scientific knowledge we cannot all agree that Lord Voldermort is all-but-certainly made-up then it is time to call the men in white coats to take someone away."Message 163) ... so where do you stand?
Do you consider we can rationally and confidently say that it is a fact(1) that these stories are fantasy fiction, and that the fantasy characters in them are, in fact, fictional? ... or that there is some reason to think that they are Real?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that the evidence is as persuasive that these are fictional as the "all but certain" evidence for scientific facts?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that saying you have a (1) position on the Dawkins Scale for religious beliefs ... for a fantasy novel series and fantasy characters actually being fantasy is more than just a little bit silly?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that saying you have a (+4) position (that the stories and characters are fictional) on the joint RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale(2) ... is a more objective, better way of measuring this ... if one really really has to do so?
Enjoy
Notes: (1) - fact in the scientific sense, with some tentativity of course (2) - see Message 233
Red Zone Untestable Concept vs Blue Zone Tested Concepts
Misunderstanding Straggler has this to say:
This is what RAZ had to say when faced with the same question:
RAZD writes:
Straggler writes:
Where do you place yourself on your own scale of belief above with regard to the untestable notion that all of the evidence on which our scientific conclusions are based is the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created 1 second ago?
I place myself as a 5, as you would understand if you actually read my positions. Obviously we cannot know for sure, we cannot test, but we can have opinions, and my personal opinion is that it is false.
How can the scientifically evidenced conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old be indicative of "probable reality" (to use RAZ's own words as applied to highly evidenced scientific conclusions) without rejecting the notion that the universe was created 1 second ago as "improbable"?
To put this in perspective:
The "1 second old universe" etc (ie all the little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that") concepts are ones that assume that the evidence lies. They are in the RED zone.
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.
... the scientifically evidenced conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old be indicative of "probable reality" ...
... is a scientifically tested concept inside the BLUE zone, predicated on the a priori assumption that the evidence is not a lie.
We can have level III. High Confidence(1) in this concept within the blue zone.
When we step out of that zone the confidence vanishes(2), and we are unable to test whether those results are real or the "1 second old universe" is real.
We can make assumptions and form opinions about concepts in the red zone, but that is all. At best this gives us level I. Low Confidence Concepts(3) opinions and assumptions, which cannot be any higher confidence because they are untestable.
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
Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
Notes on Notes: (a) - in Message 181 Straggler confides:
PS - I used to be a maths teacher. I've seen similar from smart-arse 16 year olds plenty of times. Surely RAZ should have grown out of such things by now?
The logical fallacy of authority, attempted self aggrandizement, and unsubstantiated assertion (ie - a complete absence of any analysis or critique). This is also someone who did not KNOW that 0.9999(etc) ≡ 1. Wonder if any of those kids did ...
Straggler still digs in his heels and still refuses to look the actual replies
Straggler fails to see what is in front of him.
He replies to all the posts but one ... Message 237
Why is that?
Message 237: See Message 231 for your answer to this and to Message 232: failure to read a response does not mean it was not made. Failure to understand it may be a different issue.
Curious that a link to an actual answer is ignored and not followed. Of course if he did then he couldn't still stomp around looking foolish for not reading previous posts.
Or it really is due to his inability to understand the response ... which can be due to several reasons.
I am trying to find a baseline of agreement on your terms, on your scales (whichever one it is you are currently advocating)
Obviously this isn't going to be possible if you point blank refuse to explicitly reference your answer to your scale.
Curiously, I have answered this in Message 205 and this was also noted in Message 206 and I have summarized my answer in Message 220 and again in Message 224 that you have responded to here.
The answer was in THREE MESSAGES ALREADY? Including the message he replied to ... but he DIDN'T READ IT??? is this honest debate or trolling?
Message 224: Because of the strong evidence I have previously cited for the whole set of books and the characters in them to be considered fantasy fiction as a fact, and given the absence of any contradictory evidence to this, I can safely take a (+4) stance on the concept that the books are indeed fantasy fiction novels and that the characters are fictions. I consider this a fact, and have said so.
Next comes the blinking messages to see if THAT gets through the cognitive blindness, so if anyone that CAN read these posts don't want to see the blinking, TELL STRAGGLER HE HAS AN ANSWER and stop trolling.
This would give us the following for revision 1 of the scale:
(a) - using the scientific definition of "fact" with scientific tentativity included.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that - on the initial face of it - the "killer bogeyman" is a "No Confidence Concept"?
Please note that I have added "with me" to be clear on where I stand -- even though this should NOT be necessary. I will also consider this inserted on previous questions on AGREEMENT if clarification is necessary.
0. No Confidence Concepts
No evidence, or the evidence is contradictory(3), conjecture involved, hypothetical arguments,
No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
To test that the concept is real, vs an intentional fiction created by bluegenes, we would first need evidence that it were possible -- the true skeptic says that a position is not supported, rather than it is false.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that - on the initial face of it - the fact that "someone" would have to be in contact (via "special psychic powers") with such a supernatural being and that they would need to be a Dawkins (1) on this matter, and ...
... do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that - on the initial face of it - that there is no evidence of this, either from bluegenes or from any other source?
So there is no verification that such a person exists, to say nothing of the killer bogeyman concept being a real experience for such a person, or that they communicated with bluegenes.
We can also compare this concept to other known concepts of supernatural beings and see if there is any similar concepts involved in those beliefs, and whether there have been any reported deaths as a result. As far as I know, there is no objective evidence of this occurring.
This leads to the conclusion that it is possibly a hypothetical fiction by bluegenes.
The concept of the killer bogeyman being real vs being a fiction is not supported.
Can it be tested?
Yes, in a rather limited way: the fact that I have survived every successive night asleep in my bed would be falsification of the specific claim of a one week duration.
This may be limited testing and subjective evidence, but it IS contradictory evidence to the concept of the killer bogeyman being real vs being a fiction.
Now we look at the table of relative reality:
2. when there is more contradicting evidence and less confirming evidence, there is even lesser possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that there is zero evidence to substantiate that this is true?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that there IS some evidence to substantiate that this is fiction?
Thus we have more confidence that this is a hypothetical conjecture by bluegenes.
Now we return to the RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale (rev 1 proposed version) with this information, and see that (for the concept that "this is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real"), we can go to:
I. Low Confidence Concepts
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
Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that "it is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real" is a "Low Confidence Concept"?
Then we check to see if it is possible to go to the next level:
II. Medium Confidence Concepts
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,
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.
We have some tentative evidence, but it is not validated or confirmed (you don't know if I slept somewhere else for instance). Thus this criteria is marginal at best.
Is the concept testable? Not in any practical way without some means to determine supernatural presence, as far as I know.
We could try to get a subpoena to investigate bluegenes' computer to see where the initial concept came from, but on what grounds? death threats? hardly practical, imho.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that "it is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real" is NOT a "Medium Confidence Concept"?
If we want to (for some silly reason) compare this to the Dawkins Scale ...
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that this would be a (3) on the Dawkins Scale?
Or do you think it would be a (2)? Why?
Note that if we attempt to use the Dawkins Scale on concepts that we accept with a high degree of confidence that they reflect reality that (1) cannot properly apply, so concepts like the theory of evolution could not be more than a (2). As a result I cannot see the concept of "it is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real" being a (2), as it has nowhere near the same level of confidence.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that this would NOT be a (2) on the Dawkins Scale?
Finally, if bluegenes admits that it is an intentional fiction, we do not need any more evidence, investigation or testing, and can safely conclude that the concept (that "an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes rather than real") is a fact, as much of a fact that the fantasy stories and characters of Rowland are fiction, and that this would be an Extreme Confidence Concept:
IV. Extreme Confidence Concepts
Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven(4) to be true.
It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact(a).
Here is an example of why we may want to refine this, per (4) to say:
IV. Extreme Confidence Concepts
Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven or admitted(4) to be true.
It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact(a).
If a person admits that "yes, I killed Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Pipe" and there is no evidence that contradicts that, plus some circumstantial evidence that confirms it, would this not be an Extreme Confidence Concept?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that an admission that this was an "intentional fiction created by bluegenes" would make it an Extreme Confidence Concept?
Is the bogeyman in the blue zone?
To spell it out for you: yes, this concept does not contradict the assumption that the evidence we see around us is a reflection of reality.
We also see that it is consistent with fictional creations, rather than any known supernatural concepts.
We also see that the reality of the concept is untestable.
And, as BLUE zone concepts don't necessarily need to be testable ...
... The "killer bogeyman" concept qualifies as an untestable BLUE zone concept.
We also see that there is more reason to believe it is an intentional hypothetical fiction created by bluegenes than a real concept, and that we can have enough confidence in that position to form an opinion that it is an intentional fiction.
And we can live our lives secure in the knowledge that we have made the best evaluation and judgment possible from the available evidence.
In case you are still wondering, my "Dawkins" position was a (5) on the "killer bogeyman" being real issue, and I live my life secure in the knowledge that I have made the best evaluation and judgment possible from the available evidence.
Certainly I live with the possibility of death every day and night, and a meager hypothetical conjecture like this is not sufficient to alter my behavior or beliefs.
Hypotheticals belong in the {SO WHAT} category of concepts, and that's a BIG bucket, and they can all be safely ignored in everyday life.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that we can ignore hypothetical concepts in everyday life?
Just because a concept is in the BLUE zone does NOT mean that we have to accept it as valid or testable or even that it is based on reality, just that it is based on the assumption that objective evidence reflects and represents reality.
This should be obvious. Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me on this, so far?
This is long enough, so I'll end it here.
Enjoy Notes: (1) - proposed changes are:
should we change the top level to IV. Extreme Confidence Concept, to include a touch of scientific tentativity, and then be able to include scientific laws in this category?
should we change IV. Absolute Extreme Confidence Concepts to read
Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven(4) to be true. (as opposed to "Proven")
It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact. (as opposed to "The truth is known")
should we say that:
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
High Confidence Concepts - are empirically tested
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE (with me) with these changes? Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE (with me) that this is more universally applicable than the Dawkins Scale?
(2) - incorporates changes proposed in (1) above, changes not yet accepted by Straggler (3) - problem here with "evidence is contradictory" being understood as contrary to the concept rather than to other evidence, so this should be changed to "evidence is inconclusive or self contradictory" or "pro & con evidence is contradictory" -- what do you think? (4) - here we may want to say "proven or admitted to be true" to include statements made by people rather than investigated concepts.
quote:- I am a 6 on the scale. (probably a 7 tho being that he is a known documented fictional character)
- RAZD is a 6 (possibly a 7 being that he is a known documented fictional character)
Excellent prediction.
As I have said I am a (1) on the books being fantasy fiction and the characters are fiction, based on the evidence that Rowland admits they are fiction as a known fact.
Rowland does not need to prove that they are not fiction: if she says they are fiction then it is highly rational to accept that they are fiction and that "any similarity to reality is purely coincidental and unintended" or similar provision usually used by fiction writers to avoid lawsuits. They were most certainly written as fiction and thus they ARE fiction for all intents and purposes. Certainly as close to fact as we get in science.
Now we look at Stragglers comments on the concept scale and his suggested modification:
Message 144: Where we have a known truth or high confidence concept where "conclusions regarding probable reality can be made" we are also able to make equally conclusive conclusions regarding mutually exclusive alternatives.
Message 146: It is based on the principle of contradiction and is detailed in my post above subtitled 'Probables And The Corresponding Improbables'.
Essentially it says that where something is legitimately deemed "probable" the law of contradiction stipulates that mutually exclusive alternatives must correspondingly be deemed "improbable".
Call it 'Straggler's amendment'.
I agreed, and happily incorporated this into the Concept Scale:
Message 151: ... I see no major issue here. The minor quibble I have is the language: I don't feel the terminology of "mutually exclusive alternatives" is accurate -- it implies a dichotomy that isn't necessarily applicable or necessary to imply. I would say
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.
That could be a footnote to the table and apply to each of the levels of confidence, yes?
Thus a (+4) that they are fiction translates to a (-4)(1) that they are real: otherwise one contradicts the other.
This is ALSO born out by my analysis of my belief scale logic that the value for {X} should be as valid as the value for not{X}, because any concept can be stated as an inversion.
This is ALSO why the form of the positions is invalid for 1, 2, 6 and 7 and this means there is no valid reason to accept those positions without evidence that they are valid - as you essentially agree, though with slightly different wording.
Amusingly, Straggler does not apply his own provision to any followup discussion/s and appears blind to what I have said.
Further, according to RAZD anybody who takes a position of 1,2,6 or 7 in the absence of empirical evidence must take the same position on everything which is not supported or contradicted by physical evidence. ...
Amusingly that is more like something bluegenes and Straggler have claimed, and is NOT what I have said.
Can you, or anyone, logically claim that an invalid argument applied once, must then be applied in perpetuum?
Curiously, I don't believe I made any such statement -- can you cite an example?
... Thus if he takes a position of 6 on Lord Voldemort he must also take a position of 6 with regard to the unfalsifiable supernatural entities he uses in his own examples. Which puts him firmly with those he calls "pseudoskeptics" - or worse since he refuses to accept the reasoning that they employ to support their views.
Which falls as flat as similar claims by bluegenes and Straggler when you look at my ACTUAL position/s rather than a straw man version.
Quote, Cite, and you avoid mistakes.
If in doubt paraphrase and ask ME if it is correct.
As I have said I am a (1) on the books being fantasy fiction and the characters are fiction, based on the evidence that Rowland admits they are fiction.
With the "Straggler Amendment" this translates to a (7) that they are real.
This does not in any way confine me to taking a (1) or a (7) on the next concept, rather it confines me to look at the evidence and judge what that shows.
So, to be true to his own arguments he cannot take position 6 with regard to Lord Voldemort. In fact he must hold that it is reasonable to take position 3, even if he himself is a 5.
So do you see where you went wrong here?
Enjoy Notes: (1) - not (0) Chuck77, sorry. Otherwise good job.
the light slowly seeps into the tightly shut eyes ...
Hi Straggles, still struggling?
You aren't going to explicitly place yourself on your own scale with regard to the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" are you?
Amusingly wrong. I already did this. You just failed to read it. Or understand it ...
You aren't going to confront the fact that defining anything at all such that it is unfalsifiable makes de-facto atheistic rejection of it "logically invalid" and "pseudoskpetical" on your morass of scales, logical exercises and whatnot.
You still do not understand pseudoskepticism, nor my position.
That's YOUR kind of inverted logic not mine. I do not define things as unfalsifiable in order to avoid conclusions, I look at the evidence that shows whether or not they are unfalsifiable and then see what we can and cannot conclude about them. You have it backwards. As usual.
Certainly your automatic knee-jerk rejection of something because it is unfalsifiable (or untestable ... or just undesirable?) IS logically invalid -- no matter how much you want to believe you are justified in doing so.
For example: the assumption that the objective evidence reflects and represents reality is an unfalsifiable and untestable concept.
Amusingly, I do not reject this concept out of hand, nor do I "define" it as unfalsifiable or untestable in order to avoid taking a 6 (or 7) position on this concept. Curiously, I would love to be able to take a 1 or 2 position on this, but I haven't seen the evidence to justify that.
Instead I take a 3, 4 or 5 position on untestable and unfalsifiable (depending on my personal opinion of the concept in question) BECAUSE they are untestable or unfalsifiable and there is insufficient evidence to conclude anything else: because that is the most one can logically derive from the evidence (or, more accurately, the absence of evidence).
NOTE how this invalidates your straw man. Again.
NOTE FURTHER that this does seem to pose a problem for you: if you are going to claim that any or all unfalsifiable or untestable concepts must be rejected out of hand, with an atheistic (6) or (7) position, then you must logically "atheistically" reject the foundation of science with a (6) or (7) position as well.
AND FURTHER, that if you are next going to claim that you can reject for some and not for others, then you are cherry picking your concepts, using confirmation bias, and special pleading to justify some and not all.
So, Straggler, do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that you cannot apply 1, 2, 6 or 7 positions to any unfalsifiable or untestable concepts on the Dawkins Scale (or my version of it, no matter) and that the only logical positions are 3, 4 or 5?
OR if you want to use the concept scale ...
... do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that you cannot apply +3 or higher level confidence or -3 or lower level confidence to any unfalsifiable or untestable concepts on the RAZD/Straggler Concept Scale (rev 0 or proposed rev 1 version, no matter) and that the only logical positions are -1, 0 or +1?
quote:Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) refers to arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. ... 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.
Characteristics of pseudoskeptics:
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
Double standards in the application of criticism
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim
In contrast to pseudoskepticism the true skepticism is characterized as:
doubt rather than denial; nonbelief rather than belief
an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.
Maintains that science need not incorporate every extraordinary claim as a new fact.
As a result, has no burden to prove anything.
Discovering an opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing. It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was air tight against error, but it does not disprove the anomaly claim.
Instead you will continue to convince yourself that you are relentlessly right by only applying your little scales and logical exercises to those things which will provide you the answer you have already decided upon anyway and refusing to apply the same process to anything which doesn't give the desired result.
No, Straggles, you have it backwards, again. I develop and refine them to show why I am right, to make it clearer to the more myopic or dense readers what my actual positions are and the logic and rational behind them.
You complain of the changes, just as creationists complain about changes in science. In both cases we do not have wholesale revision, rather we have refinement and increased clarity.
This is why I ask for and appreciate your input on refining these scales and diagrams, and would like that process to continue.
RAZD onetime scale being referred to writes:
+4 = Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty
Is this the same as saying that you know with absolute certainty that the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" is untrue?
With the dishonesty I have come to expect from you, you have switched the scales to one that applied to Dawkins like subjective evaluations from the RAZD/Staggler Concept Scale:
quote:
The astute reader will realize that I specifically referred to the above scale, rather than what Straggles shows.
People that have followed this discussion will KNOW that the last paragraph was suggested by Straggler, and I was happy to add it as a further refinement of the scale and how we can apply it.
Is this the same as saying that you know with absolute certainty that the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" is untrue?
It is saying that the concept that the characters are real - or any concept that would rely on them being real - is a (-4) confidence concept --- by your own inversion\contradiction amendment.
Have fun convincing yourself of the veracity of your own arguments by only applying your arguments to examples that give the result you want.
Have fun running away from the reality of actual replies with actual answers that actually provide the information you ask for while you try to hide behind lies and misinformation.
What prevents you from agreeing with me on even the smallest detail, or working with me towards agreement?
Now I am going out to enjoy the evening with friends, so read with care and don't get to hyper on posting silly claims and false things until I return.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
