Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is My Hypothesis Valid???
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 346 of 409 (515709)
07-20-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Perdition
07-20-2009 4:28 PM


This isn't really on topic, so there's no need to reply. I'll just explain myself though:
On purely logical grounds, you should be agnostic. Without any evidence whatsoever for or against it, we're left in the position of not knowing.
I disagree. I don't believe in anything until I have evidence of its existence.
Lacking belief is not actively disbelieving...
For example: My new neighbors may or may not have a cat. I haven't asked anyone and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they do, but neither have I seen a sign saying "I hate cats" or some other such evidence of the lack of cats. So, I don't think they have a cat, but all it would take for me to switch to believing they do is someone telling me.
I don't know if your neighbor has a cat or not, nor do I have anything to indicate one way or the other. I do not believe that they do have a cat (weak atheism, ie lacking a belief if god). But for me to take the active belief that they do not have a cat (strong atheism ,ie believing that god(s) do(es) not exist) without any reason one way or another would be illogical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Perdition, posted 07-20-2009 4:28 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Perdition, posted 07-20-2009 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 349 by Rahvin, posted 07-20-2009 5:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 347 of 409 (515711)
07-20-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2009 4:50 PM


Lacking belief is not actively disbelieving...
If someone asks me, "Do they have a cat." I would say, "I don't know, but I don't think so."
This may be considered weak atheism, if you prefer, but to me, just sitting there saying, "I don't know," and dropping it at that indicates that it's not very important, and in this case, I guess it isn't. But for something big, like God, I would try to make some decision, so, until I see some reason to change my mind, I'm going to assume a god doesn't exist. I describe myself as an atheist with agnostic tendencies, meaning, I think there is no God (atheist) but I admit that I could be wrong (agnostic tendencies).
For those math geeks out there, I assume a null set until I see a component.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2009 4:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 348 of 409 (515712)
07-20-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2009 1:44 PM


MORE Straggler misrepresentations?
Hi Catholic Scientist.
It seems I am not the only one who has trouble getting Straggler (a) to understand your position and (b) not misrepresenting it to suit HIS argument.
Enjoy

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2009 1:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 349 of 409 (515715)
07-20-2009 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2009 4:50 PM


But for me to take the active belief that they do not have a cat (strong atheism ,ie believing that god(s) do(es) not exist) without any reason one way or another would be illogical.
What about when I've been over to my neighbor's house and looked around thoroughly trying to find the alleged cat? Certainly it's possible that the cat is very good at hiding and I simply didn't find it, or that it's an outdoor cat that only comes back home at night when I'm asleep, but the absence of any evidence after having thoroughly searched is certainly evidence that my neighbor doesn't have a cat.
In the case of deities, as Straggler likes to point out, we know that people tend to make them up out of their own imaginations. We could apply this to the cat analogy by saying that the person who suggested our neighbor may have a cat is a habitual and well-known liar, and that last week he told us the same neighbor had a dog.
Again, it's certainly possible that we just didn't find the cat, and it could still exist. But after looking thoroughly and finding not so much as a hair or a food dish, wouldn't the reasonable conclusion be that my neighbor has no cat?
Would the situation change if several other people insisted that they've seen my neighbor's cat? What if they all describe the cat differently? What if some of them think it's really a dog?
What if RAZD says that my neighbor has a pet of some sort, but he's not sure what type, and is in fact loath to describe it with any sort of characteristics? Why would RAZD believe that there is a pet in the house if he doesn't even have sufficient data to tell even vaguely what kind of pet it is?
What if some of the "witnesses" say that they've never seen a pet at my neighbor's house, and never heard or smelled or touched anything like a cat or other pet, but that they still believe there is a pet in the house?
What if, during my search, I thought I heard a "meow?" In the absence of any other evidence, should I conclude that it was likely just a squeaky door hinge or some other sound coupled with my own selection bias? Or should I conclude that there is likely a cat that miraculously sheds no cat hair, requires no food or water dish, has no cat box, no cat toys, no bags of cat food or litter, and that in fact the only thing even remotely resembling a cat in the house is a book about cats?
Should I think my neighbor has a cat? Does my reasonable but fruitless search mean nothing? Does the noise I heard support the existence of a cat, or would that be an unfounded logical leap based on too little information and selection bias? Do the witnesses testifying that there is a cat change the picture, especially when some of them disagree over basic facts about the cat, including whether it's a cat at all?
If last Thursday I thought I saw a cat at my neighbor's house, would that change the reasonable conclusion? What if, on Thursday, I was convinced that my neighbor had a cat because of what I saw? Would that change the reasonable conclusion from the fruitless search? Is it more likely that I was mistaken regarding seeing the cat, or that a cat does exist despite the absence of any cat-related evidence in my neighbor's house?
I would say that the reasonable position in all of these cases would be to believe that my neighbor very likely does not have a cat. I would be pretty confident in that belief, while still acknowledging the always-present chance that I could be wrong. Do you disagree? Why or why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2009 4:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Perdition, posted 07-20-2009 5:45 PM Rahvin has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 350 of 409 (515716)
07-20-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Rahvin
07-20-2009 5:36 PM


You know, I was trying to get somewhere with my story, I just wasn't sure where. Thanks for picking up my slack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Rahvin, posted 07-20-2009 5:36 PM Rahvin has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 351 of 409 (515724)
07-20-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Straggler
07-20-2009 2:17 PM


More Summation - Straggler's continued Failure/s
Hi Peanut Gallery, Friends, Citizens, Countrymen: lend me your ears.
I see Straggler has still failed to find a single post of mine that supports his (false) claims about my position. This is - and continues to be - more evidence that his claims are, have been, and continue to be false.
Straggler writes:
It appears that I should have listened to Percy all those months ago.
Actually Straggler should have listened to Percy when he said (Message 111):
quote:
I actually like the term "subjective evidence," but maybe it needs to be given a clear definition. I like to think of a scale that runs from subjective to objective. Any single individual's observations are subjective, but the degree to which his observations can be shared by others increases its objectivity. An observation can only be made with the five senses, and that includes observations made with the assistance of technology, such as microscopes, thermometers and Large Hadron Colliders.
Note, that rather than be ambiguous I have been specific in (a) ruling out dreams and similar internal concepts, (b) insisting on limiting the types of experience to those of an aware and conscious individual that, as best they can determine, is through their senses. In this I have been consistent across all the threads in question.
Note that Straggler in Message 304 agreed that a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality.
Thus had he listened to Percy, the argument would have been over long ago.
You cannot put forward a position on the nature of evidence, whether based on singular experiences or otherwise, that point blank refuses to differentiate between the validity of empirical evidence as compared to other notions of evidence. That is just blatantly absurd.
Straggler has claimed that I have been ambiguous in order to obscure the argument, however it is not being ambiguous to talk about a whole class of experiences in general terms when the discussion pertains to all such experiences.
The essential problem with Straggler's original position (I'm not sure what the current one is, as it has changed from the first posts) was that he only considered "objective evidence" to be a valid starting point in forming an hypothesis. Obviously this is logically invalid - any evidence can be used for form an hypothesis. What I have shown is that there is an obvious entire class of experiences that cannot be considered objective due to their singular nature, but which are entirely valid for the formation of an hypothesis, including hypothesis that can be scientifically tested. Thus it should have been a simple matter to simply point this out as an obvious contradiction to his assertion.
Straggler's essential problem is that he does not see Percy's spectrum, but only black and white. Evidence is either {A} or {B}, {A} is "good" (and leads to science) while {B} is bad (and leads to gods and demons) and he thinks he can somehow discern\divine\distinguish black from white in all cases, and often better than the person having the experience. He thinks he can tell when a person has "made up" an experience simply by sitting at his computer terminal and reading it.
Because he is caught in his false dichotomy he makes further logical errors.
My emphasis. I fail to see how this can be taken as anything other than a categorical denial of the validity of any form of non-empirical evidence. Regardless of whether or not such experiences are singular and isolated or not. From this I concluded the following:
This is because Straggler is caught in the trap of his false dichotomy. Thus when something is not{B} he thinks it is necessarily {A}.
RAZD unequivocally only accepts empirical experiences as valid forms of evidence.
See what I mean? It's either {A} or {B}, no middle ground, no uncertainty. If I reject dreams as evidence then I only accept "empirical experiences" ...
... when in fact what I accept are any experiences of an aware and conscious individual, without needing to pretend that I (somehow) know if it is "empirical" or not.
What Straggler cannot seem to understand is that:
  1. the singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality and is a valid basis for forming a hypothesis to be used for further testing, and
  2. however we can also agree that non-empirical evidence can form a logical basis for further investigation
... are saying exactly the same thing. In neither case can we be certain about the nature of the evidence without further research and testing.
Straggler is hoist on the petard of his own making by insisting on a (false) dichotomy, when in fact there is no hard and fast line, but instead there is a spectrum of evidence. There is evidence in the muddled middle that it is rationally impossible to claim that one can know what kind of evidence it is until further research is done. You just cannot know a priori what kind of evidence you are dealing with.
Only by being blind (cognitive dissonance anyone?) to the spectrum of reality can one ignore that (a) can be (b) or that there is a class (c), where you cannot tell if it is {A} or {B}.
Straggler finds a contradiction in the way he perceives my argument, but the contradiction is not in my position, rather it is inherent in the false dichotomy through which he (darkly) perceives and filters my argument, selecting with confirmation bias only those bits that fit his preconceptions.
Rather than concluding that his argument could be false because of the contradiction (there's that cognitive dissonance again), he makes absurd claims about my position, claims that are still unsubstantiated by a single reference to a single one of my posts. Reality has come knocking, and reality has found Straggler wanting.
I'd say "enjoy" but it is actually rather sad to see Straggler's apparent inability to understand or accept such a simple concept, there are well built red cars, but there is also a whole spectrum of well built cars, and so in closing, I'll just say ....
Enough.
Note, see Message 34 Winners and Losers: I have decided not to answer any more of Straggler's posts, at least not until he actually attempts to substantiate his false claims about my position and fesses up to his multitudinous falsehoods.
It would be pointless to do so, as Straggler has convinced himself that he is right, and evidence doesn't matter, and he will continue to portray my arguments in false and deceptive ways. He has used every creationist tactic I can think of to avoid doing the honest thing.
Edited by RAZD, : end note added.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2009 2:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2009 8:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 352 of 409 (515733)
07-20-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by RAZD
07-20-2009 7:30 PM


You Wanna Continue This? Be My Guest
Percy writes:
To me the point you made with the aware but otherwise insensate intellect seems obvious. You established this as a baseline for the type of experiences that cannot constitute valid empirical evidence, and RAZD agreed with it.
Using this baseline you then argue that internal experiences that are of the same nature as those of an aware but insensate intellect also cannot constitute valid empirical evidence. This would seem to be inarguable and sufficient to settle the discussion, and I don't understand RAZD's position. Message 147
Now who is the fanatic? Now that you have finally and unequivocally been pinned down with regard to your reliance on non-empirical evidence* do you want to see if you can actually defend that position?
(*Have we done that? Or is that a "misrepresentation" of yet another ambiguous position? Who can tell?)
Even after all your latest antics it is still unclear whether or not you consider someone conscious and aware but incapable of empirical sensation as capable of experiences that you would accept as evidence? If you are as clear and consistent as you claim why don't you just tell us? Are waking visions valid forms of non-empirical evidence? Are "voice of god" inside ones head experiences valid forms of non-empirical evidence? Or are you relying on empirical evidence to validate non-empirical concepts? Both positions are demonstrably logically unjustifiable.
But why do I keep asking when I know you won't answer? Because I keep foolishly assuming that, like me, you want to test the rationality, logic and veracity of your own arguments against someone else. But you don't do you? Not really? You want to play chess games with words and avoid defending your actual position in case it is found out.
Are you trying to win the debate or the argument here RAZ? If the debate then I am not interested. If the argument then stop hiding behind ambiguity and and see me in the Great Debate thread where we can establish exactly what it is that you do actually mean.
Up to you.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2009 7:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 353 of 409 (515872)
07-21-2009 11:11 PM


The nature of evidence and the possibilities of reality
In Message 1 Straggler asks
What is a valid hypothesis? Need it be derived from evidence? Need it be refutable?
A valid argument is one that is logically derived from known true or assumed true premises in a way that does not involve any logical fallacies or contradictions.
Whether or not it needs to be derived from evidence depends on your purpose in making the hypothesis. If you purpose is science, then it needs to explain a body of evidence. For a general philosophical purpose (the layman's hypothesis) there is no need for evidence, as for example the IPU hypothesis, which is not derived from any evidence, yet many atheists seem to think it is a valid way to pursue our knowledge of reality.
Whether it needs to be refutable also depends on your purpose in making the hypothesis. If you purpose is science, then it must be falsifiable. If your purpose is philosophical validity, then all it needs is an absence of invalidating evidence.
Next he argues a "formula" for approaching the study of reality:
(objective evidence) + (logic) = (hypothesis)
This is one (1) valid approach -- the basic scientific process, take a body of known and validated evidence and by logical analysis derive basic patterns and relations, and then form an hypothesis to explain the evidence and form a basis to make predictions that can then be tested to see if the hypothesis is invalid or tentatively true.
However it is unnecessarily restrictive, and a much better formulation would be:
(evidence) + (logic) = (hypothesis)
This is demonstrated by the example of a single awake, aware, conscious and cognizant individual having an experience, and whether that experience can be used as the evidence for forming the hypothesis.
To try to classify the nature of the evidence involved in such an experience is rather hopeless, as well as relatively unnecessary.
Hopeless because it is hard to tell from a single anecdotal example whether it is an example of objective reality or not.
Unnecessary because if you follow the process from evidence to logic to hypothesis to prediction to testing, then you will likely determine the nature of the evidence in the results.
Objective evidence will lead to objective results. Anecdotal evidence that we cannot pre-classify as objective can also lead to objective results.
Other evidence, anecdotal, subjective, whatever you want to call it, may lead to inconclusive results - no strong conclusions pro nor con - and resulting in ambiguity or indecisive answers, where the logical conclusion is that there is not enough evidence to know one way or the other.
Finally some evidence, even some objective evidence may lead to invalidation of the hypothesis.
Thus limiting the evidence to just known objective evidence is not required for a complete approach to evaluating the possibilities of reality.
Then there is the issue of the nature of evidence. To my mind there are several basic forms of evidence:
There is scientific evidence, the evidence produce as a result of testing and documentation and evaluation and retesting and by replication of results by different people. An example of this kind of evidence is the age of the earth, as measured by radiometric methods, each one tested and retested, correlated by different methods and checked and checked again. This is probably the strongest form of evidence, however it is still inherently tentative, due to the inherently tentative nature of science.
There is mundane evidence, the evidence of everyday common experiences that are shared by many individuals, but which is never put through the rigors of scientific study and evaluation due to the common acceptance by (virtually) everyone. An example of this kind of evidence is the table and chairs in the coffee shop where people come and go, speaking of Michelangelo. Some may claim that this kind of evidence is stronger than the scientific evidence, however there are also whole cultures of people that have common beliefs about spirits, ghosts, etc. that they are treated as common mundane concepts and a part of accepted reality, and which are not considered real in other parts of the world, so just the common acceptance of a concept may not be sufficient filtering for the validity of a concept.
Then there is subjective\anecdotal experience and personal experience. I can read a book or go for a walk in the woods, and the walk in the woods is a different kind of experience than reading the book, it is primary in that it is experienced directly by the senses, while the book is sensed as words or pictures in a book and interpreted in the mind into a fuller experience. If I tell you about my walk in the woods, it cannot be a primary experience for you, rather it is subjective\anecdotal and like the experience of reading a book.
The walk in the woods is like the experience of mundane evidence, full of things commonly experienced by people walking in the woods, and thus it is common to accept the anecdotal evidence of such events as indicative of reality in the same way that the tables and chairs are considered elements of reality.
Certainly the person making the walk in the woods is justified in thinking that they are experiencing reality in the same way that the reality of mundane evidence is generally experienced. For them the experience is different from those who read about it or are told about it, and thus they are much more justified in their belief in the reality of the walk in the woods than these others that have not had the experience.
Certainly that makes this a subset of the valid approaches to beginning the determination of the possibilities of reality:
(the experience of a single awake, aware, conscious and cognizant individual) + (logic) = (hypothesis)
This is can lead to testable and verifiable hypothesis regarding the reality of the experience in question.
Even when the experience is unusual, unexpected, something previously not known.
This makes the experiences of people who have seen yeti\sasquatch, or aliens or whatever, still a valid beginning to the determination of the possibilities of reality with further (by scientific evaluation or by mundane repetitions of the experience) investigations.
Especially so, for those who have had the experience or similar experiences, as opposed to those who only have secondary, anecdotal evidence of the experience.
If scientific evaluation demonstrates that yeti\sasquatch are indeed living organisms, then they will be accepted as a part of reality.
If the experience of alien visitations becomes a common everyday experience, then they will be accepted as a part of reality.
In any event the simple approach
(evidence) + (logic) = (hypothesis)
is a valid starting point for determining the possibilities of reality.
There is no need to pre-evaluate the nature of the evidence, as that entails making a priori assumptions, often to limit what can be studied, based on personal biases and beliefs.
The pursuit of knowledge is done best when it is not hampered by previous beliefs concerning reality.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : more clarity
Edited by RAZD, : even more

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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2009 6:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 354 of 409 (515886)
07-22-2009 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by RAZD
07-21-2009 11:11 PM


Ending On A Positive Note
Regardless of winners, losers, perpetual stalemates, accusations of misrepresentation, evasion, ambiguity and whatever else we have actually achieved something in this thread.
We have unequivocally and categorically established that an acceptance of non-empirical experience as a valid form of evidence underlies the entire basis of your wider argument. Namely that some supernatural non-empirical god concepts are more evidenced than others. I think this is exceptionally important. Even if you don't. Others can apply their own judgement.
The exact nature of this non-empirical evidence remains unknown. You haven't said what it is that does constitute non-empirical evidence. You have only ever stated what doesn't. However this is immaterial (pardon the pun). If the evidence in question is not ultimately empirical then it is not valid. Non-empirical "evidence" is demonstrably logically invalid as a concept in itself. I have absolutely no doubt that I can demonstrate this to be true given the opportunity. But I guess that is another topic for another day.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and minor rewording.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2009 11:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by xongsmith, posted 07-24-2009 4:36 PM Straggler has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 409 (515912)
07-22-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by 1.61803
05-19-2009 5:53 PM


Insinuation?
Is your amusing image insinuating that they are now beating a dead horse? If so, I'd have to agree.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by 1.61803, posted 05-19-2009 5:53 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2009 10:40 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 356 of 409 (515916)
07-22-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Hyroglyphx
07-22-2009 9:29 AM


Re: Insinuation?
I can see why you, and quite probably everyone else, thinks this.
But I disagree to the extent that it has at long last been unequivocally concluded that non-empirical "evidence" is required for RAZd's position on "evidenced gods" to have any validity at all.
I think non-empirical evidence is logically unjustifiable. I also think I can show that. However given that everybody is quite evidently sick and tired of our antics I will leave any discussion of that for another day and another thread. At that point people (including RAZD) can then either show my thinking to be fallacious or just simply ignore me on the basis that I am a desperate crank with a chip on his shoulder, as they see fit.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 9:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 10:48 AM Straggler has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 357 of 409 (515920)
07-22-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Straggler
07-22-2009 10:40 AM


Re: Insinuation?
I think non-empirical evidence is logically unjustifiable.
Some things that are non-empirical are justifiable, though very few are. For instance, gravity was a known phenomenon but was not empirically understood for thousands and thousands of years. The same could be said of electricity.
As for deities, no one can be certain of anything. It seems to me that you are arguing that a lack of evidence proves something false, but all it really proves is there is a lack of evidence and not that something cannot exist apart from certainty. But I could be mistaken, and apologize in advance if so, as I only recently stumbled on this thread and have not taken the luxury of reading every submission.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2009 10:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2009 11:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 359 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2009 8:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 358 of 409 (515940)
07-22-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Hyroglyphx
07-22-2009 10:48 AM


Re: Insinuation?
Firstly let me just say that I have no problem or dispute with people believing in whatever they choose on the basis of faith. It is only when it is insisted that belief in gods is justified on the basis of evidence that I will disagree.
Some things that are non-empirical are justifiable, though very few are. For instance, gravity was a known phenomenon but was not empirically understood for thousands and thousands of years. The same could be said of electricity.
Something empirical that is not yet evidenced (and indeed may never be discovered) is not the same as something that is inherentlly immune to empirical discovery and can, by definition, never therefore be empirically evidenced. Gravity and electricity are both indisputably empirical regardless of the state of human knowledge at any given time. Gods, so I am told by those who believe in them, are not.
As for deities, no one can be certain of anything.
I have repeatedly stated that the philosophical possibility of such things existing must be acknowledged. I have never ever denied this. But such things cannot be both immune from empirical investigation and yet still be considered to be "evidenced" by any meaningful definition of the term "evidence". Non-empirical "evidence" of reality external to ones own mind is just not possible. But here we enter that other topic.
It seems to me that you are arguing that a lack of evidence proves something false, but all it really proves is there is a lack of evidence and not that something cannot exist apart from certainty.
No. That is not what I mean but I can understand why I may come across like that. Overzealousness on my part is probably to blame. I'll try and explain (although Rahvin did a fine job explaining this a few posts ago in this thread so maybe check that out if you are actually interested Message 349)
Do you consider the Immaterial Pink Unicorn to be evidenced? No? Are you agnostic towards it's existence? Or atheistic? Why? Because you think somebody just made it up to prove a point? Yes I think that too. But is there not also evidence that humans make up other gods? History is littered with once worshipped deities that are now redundant or refuted. Gods that people genuinely believed in as real and "unknowable" in their day. I would argue that there is enough such evidence to say that we know that people make up gods for all sorts of very human reasons as a fact. So it is not an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" approach as you are suggesting. My atheism is based on a complete lack of evidence in favour of god concepts (assuming of course that I can show non-empirical evidence to be invalid) and a great deal of evidence suggesting that god concepts are in nfact human inventions borne of need, desire and search for purpose.
Edited by Straggler, : Add link to Rahvin post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 10:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 359 of 409 (516038)
07-22-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Hyroglyphx
07-22-2009 10:48 AM


empicial evidence and unintended consequences.
Hello Hyroglyphx, welcome to Straggler's sandbox. Watch out for the buried poop.
Some things that are non-empirical are justifiable, though very few are. For instance, gravity was a known phenomenon but was not empirically understood for thousands and thousands of years. The same could be said of electricity.
Point made. Naturally Straggler will fail to see the significance, and will try to argue that he can still divine the nature of evidence from his vast knowledge of reality, or in other words equivocate.
515940 writes:
Something empirical that is not yet evidenced (and indeed may never be discovered) is not the same as something that is inherentlly immune to empirical discovery and can, by definition, never therefore be empirically evidenced. Gravity and electricity are both indisputably empirical regardless of the state of human knowledge at any given time.
See?
So what is his latest attempt to parse evidence into competing camps, to pretend there is a dichotomy when there is in fact a spectrum, and is it valid? Is it any better than any of this other attempts.
em⋅pir⋅i⋅cal —adjective (Dictionary.com, 2009)1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
How does this apply to a data set of one (1) experience of a conscious and aware individual? Can you apply this criteria to divide one experience from another, when the only difference is what was experienced by the individual?
Personally, I don't think that can logically be done, certainly not for all evidence, without using bias and preconceptions of reality, and have said so consistently through this whole argument.
Empirical evidence - Wikipedia
quote:
The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[3]
Oh dear, looks like I'm not alone there. It looks like it is not a valid distinction that will always result in the same conclusions. We have a spectrum of evidence again. So is it any better than any of this other attempts?
Remember we are talking about a single non-documented experience, what has been called anecdotal evidence.
Remember that the person making the observation uses the exact same procedures and senses in their day to day life, living among the mundane objects that, by experience alone, seem to be valid parts of reality. This person is justified by the ongoing accuracy of his experiences of such mundane objects to trust his senses.
Now we also need to remember that Straggler agreed that such an experience was a valid starting point for further investigation:
Message 304
RAZD writes:
All I have said is that a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality. You acknowledge that such experiences are valid starting points for investigation
I do indeed acknowledge this.
It is curious that he now equates this with using non-empicial evidence:
Message 354 We have unequivocally and categorically established that an acceptance of non-empirical experience as a valid form of evidence underlies the entire basis of your wider argument.
Especially seeing as how my (actual) "wider argument" has (always) consistently been, and continues to be, that a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality.
If this is so then he is also using "non-empirical evidence" whenever we discuss any examples of singular subjective experiences, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality, for he has agreed that such evidence is admissible. Such is the unintended consequence of false dichotomies and myopic thinking.
This apparent contradiction is due to the dystopic dichotomy in Straggler's vision, where he can only see the ends of spectrums and nothing in between (as your examples show, the understanding of the character of lightening before knowing what electricity was, or the concept that gravity affected rocks and feathers differently.
As for deities, no one can be certain of anything. It seems to me that you are arguing that a lack of evidence proves something false, but all it really proves is there is a lack of evidence and not that something cannot exist apart from certainty.
Which of course is where the whole thing started with Straggler. I warned you to watch out for the buried poop.
When we only have one piece of anecdotal evidence of someones conscious and aware experience, we can use it as a valid starting point as a possible indicator of realty. We cannot judge how valid the evidence itself is -- until we have done the further investigation -- as that would be applying personal bias and preconceptions, a method that is known by vast experience to be faulty.
Enjoy.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2009 10:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2009 1:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 360 of 409 (516125)
07-23-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by RAZD
07-22-2009 8:40 PM


Can Anyone (Including RAZD) Explain RAZD's Position To Me?
Let's cast the net wider and try one last time. Can anyone unambiguously explain RAZD's position on the following to me?
Can a person who is fully aware and conscious but who is incapable of any empirical sensation at all (i.e. has none of the 5 known senses) have "experiences" that RAZD would consider to qualify as evidence?
Percy to Straggler writes:
To me the point you made with the aware but otherwise insensate intellect seems obvious. You established this as a baseline for the type of experiences that cannot constitute valid empirical evidence, and RAZD agreed with it.
RAZD in response to Percy writes:
Eventually, but by gosh what a wrangle to get there from where he started. I find it humorous that he had to go to the point where perception of any external experience was impossible before he could get to a point where subjective perception was not possible evidence. Message 150
RAZD seems to say here that conscious, aware AND able to experience the phenomenon in question by means of empirical sensation are all basic requirements for any experience to qualify as evidence. Am I "misinterpreting" here?
  • Can gods, deities and other such supernatural entities be detected by means of our 5 empirical senses?
  • If they can then in what way are they inherently immune to scientific investigation? In what way are they "scientifically unknowable". Is it just a question of inadequate detection technology?
  • If however they are inherently immune from empirical sensory detection then how, with the restriction of being detectable by empirical perception agreed above, can they possibly be considered to be evidenced in any way at all?
    If anyone thinks they can explicitly and unambiguously explain how deities can be simultaneously "evidenced" whilst also being "scientifically unknowable" given the additional restriction that evidence be detectable by our 5 known senses then I would genuinely love to have it explained to me.
    Because at the moment it is undeniably unclear. I might even go so far as to say contradictory. But obviously, as RAZD is our resident paragon of clarity and consistency, it must be me that is at fault here. So if anybody can help me understand, incapable fool that I am, that would be very much appreciated.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 359 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2009 8:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 361 by Rahvin, posted 07-23-2009 2:48 PM Straggler has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024