Omphalism

Hi, Straggler. Exactly how many of you are there?At any rate, at least one of you is going to have to explain what you meant here: I'm getting mixed signals.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Has anybody actually concluded Last Thursdayism?I've always seen it portrayed as a philisophical possibility and never a conclusion.

Who knows? Does genuine belief or otherwise have any bearing on the logical or evidential validity of a position? In terms of stating ones agnosticism (or not) why would that matter?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If one finds oneself in an empirically consistent omphalistic universe then going forwards in time empiricism would presumably be as valid and useful as in a non-omphalistic universe.The difference in validity would apply only to ones conclusions regarding the past. Specifically pre the omphalistic creation date. Last Thursday in the case of last Thursdayism. In all cases of dates before that the empirical evidence would be deceptive and unreliable.That was my thinking anyway. Right or wrong. Well I think the contradiction is in the view of empirical evidence that belief in omphalism demands betwen past and future rather than in my thinking.But I am quite prepared to be wrong on that as I have given it little thought beyond the above statement.What do you think?

Not really but sort of. I think you went a little too far in claiming that a Last Thursdayist has made a conclusion based on "subjective evidence". Leaving it as a philosophical possibility keeps it in the realm of unfalsifiability and that does have some bearing on the logical or evidential validity of the position. Take what Modulus brought up in the other thread:

quote:

---

Actually - Dawkins differentiates between 'the evidence could point in one of two directions' agnotsticism (Temporarily Agnostic in Practice (TAP) and Permanently Agnostic in Principle (PAP)). One generally would be PAP for unfalsifiable stuff but Dawkins uses this as a springboard to falsifying the premise of the design argument by arguing we shouldn't consider it PAP.

---

Forcing Last Thursdayism into being an evidenced conclusion would lead to TAP agnosticism while leaving it as a unfalsifiable philosophical possibility would keep it at PAP agnosticism.

Hi, Straggler.My personal opinion is that you're set on the idea of empirical conclusions being viewed as "truth" by empiricists, when I don't think this is really a legitimate diagnosis of the empiricist's position on the matter. In fact, you even seem to be advocating a form of discipleship to the empirical philosophy, and I just don't think this is justified.Agnosticism, in this case, derives from the realization that I can’t distinguish between an omphalistic or empirical universe using my empirical philosophy. So, how could I possibly tell if one or the other is correct? All we can really discern is what I will call empirical truth, which is tentative and parsimonious, and exactly the same in both an empirical and omphalic universe.I support empiricism because, to me, omphalism feels like paranoia meaninglessly tacked on top of otherwise rational empricism, not because I think empiricism has proven itself superior.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I still utterly fail to see why genuine belief in a position has any bearing whatsoever on it's logical or evidential validity? I was putting myself in the hypothetical position of being a last Thursdayist to make the point to Nwr that all forms of omphalism are evidentially identical in empirical terms. On what basis would you suggest that Last Thursdayism might be advocated? As I see it any omphalist of any flavour is going to claim two things:1) That all empirical evidence pertaining to anything prior to a given date (e.g. last Thursday) is deceptive and unreliable.2) That there is some non-empirical method of knowing when the real date of "creation" was (biblical chronology, subjective evidence, whatever) How is Last Thursdayism based on subjective evidence any more or less falsifiable or any more or less of a philosophical possibility than Last Thursdayism based on some other non-empirical form of "knowing" the real date of creation? Well if I say that the Last Thursdayist bases his Thursdayist conclusion on reading cloud formations rather than subjective evidence does that make you happier? Or are you suggesting that a Last Thursdayist should be considered as having no reason at all for making the specific claim of Last Thursday?My basic point is that if you claim to have a high degree of confidence in the empirical evidence and related conclusions regarding the age of the Earth it doesn't make sense to say that you are utterly agnostic with regard to any given omphalistic claim. You cannot both claim confidence in the Earth having existed for billions of years whilst simultaneously claiming to have no idea whether or not it has only existed for a week.

How much confidence would you say you have in the conclusion that the Earth has existed for billions of years?

If someone says: "It could have been...."Then my PAP agnosticims goes: yeah, sure, whatever If someone says: "It was...."Then my TAP agnosticim goes: Oh really, lets look and see We could examine his empirical evidence to see if it leads to his conclusion. Its a reaction to empirical evidence suggesting something that they don't want to accept. And the response is: "Well, it could have been...."And yeah, it could have but its doubtful.If their response was: "No, it actually happened like...."Then we can examine their evidence and figure out if/where they're wrong. 1) I don't think they see it as being deceptive and unreliable, but rather that it is being misread because of faulty assumptions.For example, the omphalist might believe that light was created already traveling from closer than scientists think, so when they extrapolate the current speed back they come up with the wrong answer for its source. But its the same empirical evidence and its not deceptive or unreliable... Ya know what I mean?

Thanks. But I really did not need the abuse.Whether you like it or not, this is a question about meaning and pointing that out is not obfuscation. Under what theory of reference.
Do propositions even exist?A question about beliefs is implicitly a question about mind. Our science of mind is very inadequate, perhaps non-existent. There are lots of highly contentious issues.I entered this discussion only to respond to a question raised by Straggler on why people might accept the scientific conclusions on age, yet be agnostic about omphalist claims. I don't read other people's minds, so I can only answer that for myself. And for me, it is a question of meaning. The omphalist conclusions are ones that are completely inapplicable to what I mean by, say "10,000 years ago". Based on the fact that the omphalist makes such claims, it is a likely conclusion that they are not inapplicable to the omphalist's meaning.

No, I am not making any such assumption. I have no idea where you got that idea. As I use the term "metaphysical", they are making a metaphysical claim. I have no idea how you are coming to that conclusion.

I see biblical omphalism as an evasion of the evidential case against young earth creationism and similar positions.I see a pure "Last Thursdayism" as raising important philosophical issues about the reliability of evidence of the past.

My prior reply was somewhat brusque. So whilst I think that is the key question let me try and answer your points in a less fuller manner. Well there certainly seems to be something about me that inspires people to think that about me. In actual fact I am not claiming to diagnose or represent "the empiricists position" at all. Most empiricists can speak for themselves I am sure. My own position is that an objective reality exists and that we can investigate that and model it through empirical investigation. But that we can never knowingly obtain "truth" through empirical investigation and that we are in effect engaged in a form of never ending verisimilitude. To know "truth" requires that we knowingly have ALL of the possible evidence pertaining to any given truth and that is impossible without omniscience. And I certainly don't claim to be omniscient. Thus the necessary fact of incomplete evidence gives rise to the necessity for tentativity in empirical evidence based argument. I advocate tentativity in science as an absolute must and have got myself into scraps with those who consider such philosophical considerations pragmatically pointless many times before.The "Empricism Vs Omphalism" subject heading is derived from what I see as the contradiction between claiming a high degree of confidence in the empirically derived conclusions about the age of the universe whilst stating absolute agnosticism towards omphalistic claims on the same subject gained through a different epystemology. If one has high confidence in the belief that the Earth is billions of years old based on empirical evidence how can one be anything but correspondingly dubious about the claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old based on biblical omphalism? Which I don't disagree with at all. I am not certain that we weren't all created a minute ago, a week ago or whatever. But am I agnostic? Not really. Unless simple lack of absolute certainty qualifies. In which case I am agnostic about absolutely everything and the term becomes meaningless. If empiricism works going forwards then I would say that rationally we should consider the most viable method of investigation looking back as well. Omphalist claims that some entirely different epystemology is required to determine anything prior to a certain date rely on methods of "knowing" that cannot be demonstrated to be reliable. They may be "true" but I have no rational reason to think so. As long as empiricism works going forwards that is all the evidence available to us and I think the rational thing to do is apply it consistently.But on a less rational/formal basis I just think omphalism smacks of bullshit invented with the specific aim of being unfalisifiable.

What metaphysical claim are they making?Be specific.

On what basis do you conclude that it is doubtful? And if thei stated form of evidence (subjective evidence, reading cloud formations, whatever) cannot be demonstrated to lead to conclusions that are any more reliable than simply guessing..........?Then surely their conclusion remains equally as "doubtful" as if they just claimed that Last Thursday was the point of creation for no reason whatsoever?