Omphalism

You advocate empirical evidence as the only valid form of evidence yet you distinguish between two empirically identical omphalistic claims.I think you are lacking a coherent evidential argument here.

That they're just responding with something that allows them to maintain their a priori belief rather than something that's based on evidence. Then nothing. Something hasn't been demonstrated.Although, if they had some actual reason to believe and I thought their belief was genuine, then I would be a little less doubtful than the responding one above and I'd actually look into it instead of just hand-waving it away. Sure, what's your point?

You seem to be advocating belief itself as some sort of "evidence" upon which to elevate some claims over others. Is this the case? Dude you are the one making a distinction between Last Thursdayism being claimed on some form of non-empirical evidence and it being claimed for no reason at all. I don't see there being any difference in terms of validity or reliability.Now apparently you don't either?

Where have I advocated that?The discipline of mathematics is almost entirely based on non-empirical evidence, and is much the better off for that. They are not philosophically identical, and that is the basis for distinguishing between them.

If somebody brought up Omphalism as a philisophical possibility then I would find that to be more dubious than somebody who said they observed some kind of evidence that led them to conclude Omphalism.But since the philisophical possibility is not falsifiable then I'd be stuck at PAP agnosticism, however, the concluded Omphalism could be investigated so I'd have TAP agnosticism. You've misunderstood, partially my fault due to conflation. We need to distinguish between Last Thurdayism and Biblical Omphalism.Last Thursdayism is not a claim from any kind of evidence, it is a philosophical possibility, I have PAP agnosticism. Biblical Omphalism as stemming from the Bible, is a claim that I have TAP agnosticism to until we actually look at the evidence and form a better conclusion. Biblical Omphalism, as a response to empirical evidence in a 'it could have been' position, doesn't actually make a claim, but is left as a philisophical possibility and too I would have PAP agnosticism, but I would be doubtful because they are just basing it on a priori conclusions.Make sense?

Here Message 13 "The point is that if you don't tie your concepts to empirical data, then all kinds of games can be played." They both deny the validity of empirical evidence with regard to the age of the universe and they both advocate an alternative non-empirical epystemology as a means of determining the age of the universe. So in what way are the philosophically different such that you can reject one and claim agnosticism towards the other? What metaphysical claim are they making? Be specific.

Randomly guessing is just another way of saying that a choice has been made with no evidential reason right? We can agree on that surely. If a claim is made on the basis of a form of "evidence" that is indistinguishable from guessing in terms of reliability then what is the evidential difference? Other than the fact that in one case the person believes that they are not guessing. How can you investigate a form of evidence that is indistinguishable in terms of reliability of conclusion to randomly guessing? Why? We all agree that any omphalistic universe is indistinguishable from a non-omphalistic universe. But now you want to distinguish between different omphalistic universes.Last thursday omphalist universe = Empirical universe = Biblical omphalist universeBut Last thursday omphalist universe does not equal Biblical omphalist universe. How does that work? Only if there are non-empirical forms of evidence that are distinguishable from guessing in terms of demonstrable reliability.If not then you are simply elevating one possibility over another on the basis of belief alone. And I don't see how that is justifiable.

Don't assume that the evidence that hypothetically lead to omphalism is indistinguishable from guessing and my point might make more sense. Because one being an unfalsifiable philisophical possibility leads to PAP agnosticism but the other being an actual claim based on evidence leads to TAP agnosticism that can be overturned.

Hi, Straggler. You're evaluating one philosophy based on the conclusions you draw from reasoning with another philosophy. How can a conclusion based on empirical evidence mean anything at all for the veracity of omphalism?Within an entirely empirical framework, confidence in various theories or ideas is meaningful, and confidence can be used to compare theories meaningfully.But, it's a whole different ballgame when you're trying to compare two different philosophies. You're no longer comparing theories: you're comparing axioms. Empiricists should know that empiricism can't do anything with axioms accept assume them or not.

---

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

Well if this hypothetical form of non-empirical evidence that can be demonstrably distinguished from guessing exists then you have a point. If it doesn't then I am not sure that you do. If your hypothetical form of evidence exists.

If you have confidence in empiricism as a method of drawing conclusions about the past how can you have confidence in an epystemology that denies the validity of empiricism with regard to drawing conclusions about the past?You have simply transferred the problem from confidence in opposing conclusions to confidence in opposing epystemologies. Agnosticism is a declaration about belief. If you have confidence in empiricism and it's conclusions how can you be anything but dubious about something that denies the validity of empiricism? Not quite. In the case of omphalism there is a factor you have missed. Omphalistic claims are unfalsifiable claims made about some specific point in the past. Thus we do have some rationale on which to base our empiricism. The evidence of empiricism having been viable since Last Thursday (or whatever).If empiricism works going forwards from that point 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 the ONLY evidence available to us and I think the rational thing to do is apply it consistently.

Thus my questioning of anyone actually concluding Last Thursdayinsm as opposed to it just being brought up as a philisophical possibility.

That's not at all the same. Some decisions have to be made prior to there being any empirical data, and as such are part of how one ties concepts to empirical data. Actually, I think that is wrong. The biblical omphalist embraces some empirical data, namely that which is biblical (and which I would consider low quality and unreliable). The LastThursdayist argues for radical skepticism about all evidence. Don't waste your time repeating this. My knowledge of metaphysics is very thin, so I am not going to debate it.

Hi, Straggler. Seriously, are you doing this again? This is not a meaningful question! The validity of empirical conclusions is not in question here: it is valid either way!As near as I can tell from the physical evidence around me, the earth is billions of years old. But, I can only derive this conclusion from physical evidence, and, in this topic, you are asking me to consider the possibility that all this physical evidence has been doctored to give the appearance of telling a consistent story. When given that option, how can I still hold to my conviction that my empirical conclusion is correct?How can I test it?
How can I distinguish between an empirical conclusion that is derived from real evidence, and an empirical conclusion that is derived from doctored evidence that perfectly mimics real evidence?
How can I be sure that the evidence in the past is the only evidence that was or is being doctored?If I can’t do this, then my integrity requires me to admit that I do not have the tools to answer this question. That, Straggler, is the very definition of agnosticism!

---

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

It is abuse to point out what it seems to me you are doing? If you aren't intentionally obfuscating your point, you now know that I think you are. Which would seem to me to be a prompt for clarity. I thought the question that immediately preceded it might have clued you in on that, "Why don't you explain how that is relevant?".Incidentally, I note you still haven't explained how it is relevant. It isn't necessarily about meaning, but you are trying to raise a point about meaning. When I ask a question about that, your answers have not been forthcoming. That certainly seems like obfuscation to me. Again - please explain why you you think it is a relevant question to ask. That doesn't seem relevant. Please explain how it is. I don't want clues as to what your point might be, clues that need to be extracted as if from some mystic guru. Why? I asked this before. What makes you think that the omphalist's conclusions are 'inapplicable' to what you mean by "10,000 years ago"?