Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 106 of 304 (500395)
02-25-2009 1:07 PM


In general here we have the theme that the absurdity of the IPU itself is only incidental to the actual argument.
The typically used IPU argument could just as easily replace the unicorn with an actually-worshipped deity, and the form of teh argument would be identical. Using an absurd-seeming entity like the unicorn is simply more likely to garner an emotional reaction from the theist.
The form of the argument is this:
IF
Confidence(Entity A) > Confidence(Entity B)
AND
Evidence(Entity A) == Evidence(Entity B)
THEN
Special pleading is invoked.
In the IPU argument Entity B is obviously the Invisible Pink Unicorn. However, the form of the argument does not change if you replace the IPU with Thor, or Zeus, or any other proposed entity for which no objective evidence (including no contradictory evidence) exists. Entity A and Entity B must both be functionally identical in terms of supporting objective evidence, but otherwise none of their specific characteristics are relevant to the argument. They don't even both need to be deities.
This means that the IPU argument does not rest on perceived absurdity, and neither does it take the form of an ad hominem attack. There is no insult involved in the logical form of the argument - any insult is strictly incidental, and wholly irrelevant to the argument itself.
RAZD would have us believe that Entity A and Entity B occupy two different sets of possibilities and so are not comparable. However, he has not demonstrated any difference that is relevant to the form and function of the IPU argument. As stated, his accusations of fallacious reasoning with regard to the IPU argument have been shown to be wholly false. For his argument to be valid, he needs to show that Entity A and Entity B are actually different in a way that is meaningful to the actual argument. Since the argument takes into consideration only a lack of either supporting or contradicting evidence, RAZD needs to show that one of the two entities is either supported or negated by some form of objective evidence. If he cannot do so, then it is apparent that Entity A and Entity B both occupy the same set: those speculative entities that are neither supported nor contradicted by objective evidence.
RAZD's only other recourse would be to either attempt to include "subjective evidence" which, as previously shown, is not actually evidence of anything objective at all. He could also claim that not all evidence is currently known, but this again speculates that the likelihood of finding future evidence supporting Entity A is greater than the likelihood of finding future evidence supporting Entity B, and such a speculation has no basis and would again invoke special pleading.
It would appear that the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument, when it takes the form used above, is in fact a logically valid argument. So long as greater confidence is held in the existence of one entity over another without a correspondingly greater amount of objective evidence, the theist is using special pleading, and as such the theistic position is logically inconsistent.

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 107 of 304 (500471)
02-26-2009 2:31 PM


Some final thoughts to no one in particular
I find it hard to wrap my mind around the idea that 'faith' is held w/o evidence of one form or another. I see that a few think that way. If you were never exposed in any manner to that which you have faith in would your faith exist? Somehow faith not based on any claim to evidence whatsoever sounds strikingly analogous to 'homeopathy'.
I now understand more than I desired about the IPU, unless the IPU religion that I initially described actually exists, I might entertain the idea of converting..
So the intent of the IPU is not that it is without evidence, got it. I think..

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Stile, posted 02-26-2009 3:26 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 108 of 304 (500477)
02-26-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by shalamabobbi
02-26-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Some final thoughts to no one in particular
shalamabobbi writes:
I find it hard to wrap my mind around the idea that 'faith' is held w/o evidence of one form or another.
"Evidence" is a word used a lot around here. It also has a bunch of definitions that can be almost contradictory at times.
Evidence in the scientific sense - Only information that has been objectively verified to point towards a conclusion.
Example: When you let go of things and they fall towards the earth is evidence that gravity exists.
Evidence in general, colloquial terms - Any information that points toward any conclusion.
Example: A friend of my cousin's, mother's best buddy said that mountain goats can breathe underwater.
With all the different things that fall under the "general evidence", it is sometimes wise to specify what kind of evidence you're talking about.
That said, most people certainly do have reasons that they hold their faith. Those reasons just tend to be closer to the "general evidence" rather than "scientific evidence."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-26-2009 2:31 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

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


Message 109 of 304 (500509)
02-26-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-20-2009 8:46 PM


Restatement of the TOPIC
I don't have time to deal with the side issue people keep raising, especially the ones that avoid the issue or try to redefine it.
To restate the topic one more time:
The argument usually goes something like this:
  1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
  2. There is no evidence for immaterial pink unicorns.
    therefore, you should believe in immaterial unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.
As a counter example we can propose alien life in the universe:
  1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
  2. There is no evidence for alien life elsewhere in the universe.
    therefore, you should believe in alien life elsewhere in the universe or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.
Curiously, this does not seem as absurd as the belief in immaterial pink unicorns, in fact it seems quite possible - even if it may never be possible to prove that alien life exists.
I would like to deal with three and only three points:
(1) the class of things being discussed is those where we have no (convincing\conclusive) evidence FOR a concept and where we have no (convincing\conclusive) evidence CONTRADICTING the concept.
(2) the use of the "immaterial pink unicorn" argument as a "typical" member of this group.
(3) the question of whether alien life exists in the universe belongs in this group or not.
I would appreciate those several individuals that have posted on this thread would look back at your posts and see if you have really treated this topic fairly.
I would also appreciate, that if you cannot keep to just these three issues within the topic, that you hold off until this issue is resolved.
I'm sorry, but I just do not have my usual time to devote to answering every side issue, misunderstanding and redefinition.
This thread is ONLY for discussing this logically false argument and NOT whether atheism or deism or last-thursdayism is a logically valid position.
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 1 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2009 8:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2009 9:07 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2009 3:02 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 110 of 304 (500515)
02-26-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
02-26-2009 8:23 PM


Cognitive Dissonance
OK. It is my stated intention to present my wider argument whilst staying absolutely within the narrow confines of the topic as you have defined it to be.
RAZD writes:
The argument usually goes something like this:
1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
2. There is no evidence for immaterial pink unicorns.
∴ therefore, you should believe in immaterial unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.
As a counter example we can propose alien life in the universe:
1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
2. There is no evidence for alien life elsewhere in the universe.
∴ therefore, you should believe in alien life elsewhere in the universe or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.
Curiously, this does not seem as absurd as the belief in immaterial pink unicorns, in fact it seems quite possible - even if it may never be possible to prove that alien life exists.
RAZ your position regarding the accepted scientific likelihood of life on other planets as being completely equal to belief in the IPU or any other wholly unevidenced claim is leading you to a "cognitive dissonance" situation.
Cognitive Dissonance writes:
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.
By considering the following series of questions the reasons for this cognitive dissonance and the nature of this contradiction should become clear:
1) Do you agree that the scientific method is the most objective and reliable means we have of determining the veracity of empirical claims?
2) Do you agree that hypotheses are a key component of the scientific method?
3) Do you agree that scientific hypotheses are tentative, directly untested conclusions which are derived by applying logical reasoning to existing objective evidence and scientific conclusions?
4) Is the belief in the possibility, and indeed likelihood, that alien life exists elsewhere in the universe a scientific hypothessis directly derived from current scientific knowledge regarding the nature of the universe and the nature of life?
5) Is the belief in the likelihood of the existence of extraterrestrial life elsewhere in the universe as completely and utterly as subjective and empirically unfounded as the belief that the IPU exists?
In objective, evidence based terms the existence of the IPU is not comparable to any scientific hypothesis.
In objective evidence based terms the IPU is absolutely comparable to any other wholy unevidenced claim.
If you both accept the scientific method as superior whilst simultaneously insisting that the possible existence of life on other planets is wholly unevidenced in objective and reasoned scientific terms then there is an inherent contradiction in your thinking.
This contradiction is the source of your cognitive dissonance.
To refute this you need to either disclaim your acceptance of the scientific method OR demonstrate that the alien life hypothesis is completely ungrounded in existing scientific conclusions.
Good luck.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 8:23 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 111 of 304 (500516)
02-26-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
02-24-2009 2:22 AM


Alien Life and the IPU ... alone at last ... ?
Hi Straggler,
Let's see if we can settle the alien life issue before adding other arguments that are not on topic.
The absolute probability is irrelevant. It is a mathematical fact that the greater the number of planets the greater the relative likelihod of life on other planets is. If Mark24 denies this he is just mathematically wrong. As are you.
The absolute probability is the argument. The fact of increased numbers being offset by the fact of uninhabitable planets being the vast majority is important to the final conclusion. And that's only two factors in the equation.
I find it curious that you so quickly dismiss Mark24's argument as wrong without addressing the issue on non-habitability. I think he has a valid point, even though my personal position is that life is highly probable given the preponderance of pre-biotic molecules in space (and thus the result may be organic life similar to ours, rather than the silicon etc life of so many SF stories).
Thus we can conclude the principle that you must deny in order to maintain your flawed "world view" philosophy. Namely that the relative likelihood of a claim can be deduced from objective factors that have nothing to do with subjective world view.
Curiously, my "flawed" world view philosophy is born out by scientific research in the field of psychology, particularly on how people make decisions. I think you really need to back down on this issue: once you are outside the field/s of scientific knowledge the scientific process no longer works.
The fact remains that you and Mark24 reached contradictory conclusions, based on the same evidence, and the same basic scientific knowledge, and the same basic logic, and the difference is how you each perceive the relative importance of different evidence to the final answer.
False. Not all supporting evidence is logically equally relevant. If your claim were true the formation of highly defined scientific hypotheses would be absolutely impossible.
Strangely, disagreement of the relative importance of different evidence leads to different conclusions, and this is where different scientific theories begin. So yes, I believe how you personally interpret information is very important to the conclusions you will reach and it is why they will be different from Mark24 or Modulus or me.
Your "Absence of evidence" assertion is false. No claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence. As I have been saying for two threads now.
We will take your assertion that the existence of alien life in the universe is highly probable.
Given this as a true basis for making more logical conclusions, I believe we can safely say that human life is not the most advanced life form. There are likely much older histories of life that also developed intelligence as a necessarily emergent property of evolution, and it would not take many million years to substantially exceed our poor capabilities and knowledge. With the earth being 4.55 billion years old, in a 13.7 billion year old universe, there is substantial opportunity for much older life forms, even if you start after the production of iron or uranium by second and third generation stars. We have also had several false starts on the path to an intelligent dominant life form capable of space travel, so some other planets may have taken a shorter time to the same result. Thus there should be some that have proceeded much further.
This is, of course all supported by your objective evidence.
Your "Absence of evidence" assertion is false. No claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence. As I have been saying for two threads now.
There are lots of claims of UFO's, and as you say, there are "no claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence," so there must be a logical basis for such claims. I cannot speak for them, as I have never had any personal experience with UFO's.
Now, are these people seeing immaterial pink unicorns instead of aliens, or is your assertion that "No claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence" invalid? (as much as I would like to use it).
Where do I draw the line?
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 99 by Straggler, posted 02-24-2009 2:22 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 02-27-2009 7:47 AM RAZD has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 112 of 304 (500532)
02-27-2009 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
02-26-2009 8:23 PM


It might be useful if you could spell out what evidence + reasoning you think there is that leads to the conclusion that the IPU tentatively exists and likewise, what evidence + reasoning that leads to the conclusion that it doesn't; perhaps some discussion as to why you might err in one direction or the other on this subject might be useful.
That might help me understand why you think that the IPU is in the same category as alien life.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 8:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 113 of 304 (500546)
02-27-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
02-26-2009 9:26 PM


Re: Alien Life and the IPU ... alone at last ... ?
RAZD
Is the proposed possibility of alien life elsewhere in the universe derived from the objective empirical scientific evidence available?
Or not?
Is the proposed existence of the IPU (and other comparable entities which must remain nameless by the strict definition of your OP) derived from the objective empirical scientific evidence available?
Or not?
I am perfectly willing to evaluate the concepts under consideration within the context of your "world view" assertion if you are willing to acknowledge that not all world views are equally objective, reliable or evidentially founded.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 9:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2009 11:48 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 114 of 304 (501065)
03-03-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Straggler
02-27-2009 7:47 AM


Re: Alien Life and the IPU ... alone at last ... ?
I'm duplicating my response from the other thread here to save me some work:
Which leads us to the question of if (a) there is a probability of life, then (b) are the claims of UFO peoples valid, as they are based on a level of objective evidence that you say makes alien life probable?
If not, then where do you draw the line in the logic train?
Where does the probability end?
single cell life
multicell life
life with differentiated tasks
life with organs
life with skeletons
life that can manipulate objects
life that can manipulate it's local environment
life that can make objects
life that can make local environments
life that can send objects into space
life that can send life into space
life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundaries
These are all equally probable based on our sample of one out of all known planets.
One can also ask how much a million years head start on technology would affect the equations - and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that alien life had such a head start, unless you want to plead that human life is special.
Does this make UFO's reasonable to believe in?
There is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence.
So there is evidence of UFO visits?
Or is belief in UFO's similar to IPU's and why?
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 113 by Straggler, posted 02-27-2009 7:47 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2009 9:38 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 116 by bluegenes, posted 03-04-2009 11:47 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 03-04-2009 12:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2009 2:17 PM RAZD has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 115 of 304 (501103)
03-04-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
03-03-2009 11:48 PM


Re: Alien Life and the IPU ... alone at last ... ?
These are all equally probable based on our sample of one out of all known planets.
Really? Astrobiologists disagree with you. They point out that in order have uninterrupted evolution for as long as we have had there would need to be several fortunate events such as the existence of something like Jupiter and our Moon to protect life from constant catastrophe. From our single sample of one solar system, we know that most bodies aren't in the fortunate position that Earth is, and plenty of them aren't even solid.
They would point out that complex life would need to live somewhere temperate - so Io might have simple life forms on it, but it is unlikely to ever develop anything more interesting that extremophiles etc etc.
It's always good to look at as much evidence as possible when we try and think about these kinds of things otherwise we end up sounding like creationists, "We're looking at the same evidence and just drawing different conclusions...", when that is often not the case.
So there is evidence of UFO visits?
Or is belief in UFO's similar to IPU's and why?
Yes, there is evidence of alien piloted spacecraft visits. Its not very good evidence, especially given that most cases there is no evidence that the object is a craft that is capable of extra-atmospheric travel and in not a single case to date is there any evidence that they are piloted by non terrestrial beings.
When we weigh up other evidence such as the huge amounts of times that witnesses get things wrong - when objects have later been identified as clouds, venus, the moon, street lamps, helicopters, planes flying in formation, etc, we have to make a judgement of probabilities:
Which is more likely, that UFO is something mundane (literally 'of this world') or that it is piloted by intelligent aliens capable of travelling long distances just to take a look but not to overtly interfere with affairs on this planet and just such a time as we happen to be around to periodically notice them?
This makes it different than the IPU, unless you can tell me about the evidence and reasoning for and against the IPU's existence along similar lines as the above?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2009 11:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2009 10:12 PM Modulous has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 116 of 304 (501112)
03-04-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
03-03-2009 11:48 PM


Re: Alien Life and the IPU ... alone at last ... ?
RAZD writes:
Or is belief in UFO's similar to IPU's and why?
I think that "alien spacecraft" might be better than UFOs, as I know two reliable types who have seen things in the sky that they couldn't identify, but neither particularly thinks they've witnessed alien presence, just UFOs (by definition).
I just want to point out that your original post juxtaposed this:
If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
There is no evidence for immaterial pink unicorns.
therefore, you should believe in immaterial unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.
With this:
If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
There is no evidence for alien life elsewhere in the universe.
What's wrong with it is, firstly, that life and "elsewhere in the universe" are things known to exist, and that IPUs (and their habitats) aren't. That alone makes it a useless analogy.
Secondly, it's particularly bad as a choice because it doesn't even describe something unlikely in terms of our present scientific knowledge. There is good evidence for it, although it's not direct or conclusive. So your "no evidence" bit is wrong.
If you want to use alien life in a way that's a better analogy to believing in IPUs or knowing about unknowable deities, I'd suggest something like:
"There's no evidence for little green giants in invisible yellow spaceships visiting the earth."
Better, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2009 11:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 117 of 304 (501121)
03-04-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
03-03-2009 11:48 PM


Re: Alien Life and the IPU ... alone at last ... ?
Where does the probability end?
single cell life
multicell life
life with differentiated tasks
life with organs
life with skeletons
life that can manipulate objects
life that can manipulate it's local environment
life that can make objects
life that can make local environments
life that can send objects into space
life that can send life into space
life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundaries
These are all equally probable based on our sample of one out of all known planets.
No, they're not. They go from first to last because of contingency.
It's also worth mentioning that there are other environments in this solar system which could support the first, and even possibly the second and third, but seem unlikely or impossible for the rest.
Anyway, I've already given you an alien equivalent to believing in the IPU, which really sums up this section of the O.P.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2009 11:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 118 of 304 (501122)
03-04-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Rrhain
02-25-2009 5:35 AM


shalamabobbi writes:
Your initial response falls in line with what I was getting at, that you can dispute the claims to evidence. I am not sure if the IPU can be shoehorned into the argument w/o establishing that the 'evidence' is indeed subjective and not objective or can be dismissed with Stragler's 'people make shit up' etc or in some other way. Everyone will likely be convinced of such arguments against the evidence with the noteable exception of the person who claims to have experienced the evidence.
rahvin writes:
Subjective experiences are not evidence. Period. Ever.
"Evidence" is one or more facts that support one conclusion over others. Facts are not subjective. Subjective experiences and feelings do not involve facts, and thus do not qualify as evidence.
My only point was that subjective experiences are factual to the person having them. It occurs in the reality and is about the reality we all experience. Since we don't know why we have them, I find it a bit presumptuous to simply discard them as completely irrelevant.
They are not objective, yes, but that is only because they are unique to the individual. Opinions are not objective either, but it doesn't make them wrong on all accounts simply because we can't support certain opinions with objective evidence.
Of the one having the subjective experience, yes, but that isn't of any use nor is it what we are talking about.
What's with the we? Who was talking to you? I posted a comment to Rahvin about his comment to shalamabobbi, it was IMO relevant their discussion on the IPU.
RAZD and Percy have explained their beliefs about deism to be because of a "feeling" they have that there is a god. This feeling is subjective and has been common throughout the existance of humans. I do not agree with them that their personal subjective experiences confirm their beliefs in a god, this is IMO their own interpretation of the experience itself and by default - or lack of a better definitive answer - they invoke a god-like-entity. What I do see however, is that the experiences themselves are commonly shared and are relevant in some way to the existance of consciousness.
How they - RAZD and Percy - correlate this experience to a god, I do not know. IMO god is the default entity that people use when trying to understand their interactions with the universe at a level beyond the normal. And only conscious/aware/sentient beings, currently - and that we know of - can do this.
A product of the universe, contemplating about the universe and having unique, subjective experiences that some how connects them with the universe - does this really seem irrelevant to you?
Please do not play dumb.
Don't be an asshole, I was not playing dumb.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : changed perspective on RAZD and Percys "feelings" about god

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 02-25-2009 5:35 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Rrhain, posted 03-07-2009 4:49 AM onifre has replied

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


(1)
Message 119 of 304 (501128)
03-04-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
03-03-2009 11:48 PM


The Evidential Foundation of Possibilities
EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE
The possibility of life on other planets is derived from the firm objective evidential foundation of knowing that life exists on this planet and knowing that other planets exist.
The probability of of life on other planets can then be objectively evaluated in terms of what we know about the nature of life and the number of planets available to spawn such phenomenon. The probability is very much a secondary consideration and will depend on the information available.
THE IPU AND OTHER UNFOUNDED CLAIMS
The possibility of the IPU actually existing is derived from a purely subjective basis with no objective evidential foundation whatsoever.
The probability of the IPU actually existing can only be considered in terms of the observed propensity for humankind to invent such things as there is no other objective evidence available on which to evaluate such a claim.
Does this make UFO's reasonable to believe in?
So UFOs are on topic now are they.......?
Is there any firm objective evidential foundation for seriously considering the possibility that we have been visited by alien spacecraft?
I would say not. All of the "evidence" I am aware of is wholly subjective. Very much more like the IPU in that important sense.
Straggler writes:
There is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence.
So there is evidence of UFO visits?
Or is belief in UFO's similar to IPU's and why?
There is no objective evidential reason for thinking that we have ever been visited by alien spacecraft.
There is much objective evidence to suggest that people make such things up.
There is also objective evidence regarding the physics of space travel that, as I understand it, would suggest the sort of claims made by people with relation to UFOs are unlikely to be true.
single cell life
multicell life
life with differentiated tasks
life with organs
life with skeletons
life that can manipulate objects
life that can manipulate it's local environment
life that can make objects
life that can make local environments
life that can send objects into space
life that can send life into space
life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundaries
The evidence available suggests that any of these might possibly exist elsewhere in the universe.
But there is still no objective reason to think that any of them have ever made their way here in UFOs.
Of course I am confident that you won't attempt to confuse or conflate the two issues...........?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2009 11:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2009 10:53 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 120 of 304 (501181)
03-04-2009 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Modulous
03-04-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Alien Life and the IPU ... alone at last ... ?
From our single sample of one solar system, we know that most bodies aren't in the fortunate position that Earth is, and plenty of them aren't even solid.
The problem is, that our single sample has all these elements, and there is no comparison to other planets with life, only to planets without life, thus when we measure the probability of (x) occurring against the known evidence (1 out of all known planets) we end up with the same probability: 1 out of all known planets.
It may be a little simplistic, but then the number of planets is still quite small. I thought of adding in a factor for when each event occurred in earth's history, however this assumes that the pattern on earth must be repeated to achieve the same end, and I don't think that is valid. For all we know, on once you have reached (a) then (b) to (z) is inevitable, and could take from a billion to 10 billion years depending on what steps, backsteps and such are taken.
And it really doesn't alter the numbers:
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
quote:
When it comes to known planets in our galaxy, however, around 200 are known to exist. Two Hot New Planets Discovered - Universe Today
The article cited is from Two Hot New Planets Discovered, Written by Fraser Cain, September 27th, 2006.
All these planets are not capable of life as we know it, according to the experts, whether they have existed for 1/4 of earths existence or 4x's earths existence. The number of planets where single celled life developed is 1 out of 200. The number of planets where intelligent organisms have evolved - organisms capable of sending things out of their solar system, and capable of sending living organisms inside piloted habitable microenvironments into space and recovering them - is also 1 out of 200.
So yes, practically speaking, all these events are of equal probability according to the information we know.
Yes, there is evidence of alien piloted spacecraft visits. Its not very good evidence, especially given that most cases there is no evidence that the object is a craft that is capable of extra-atmospheric travel and in not a single case to date is there any evidence that they are piloted by non terrestrial beings.
...
This makes it different than the IPU, unless you can tell me about the evidence and reasoning for and against the IPU's existence along similar lines as the above?
Interesting. Just to be clear, you are claiming that this evidence, no matter how poor, likely to be erroneous, and possibly hallucination, separates the possibility of UFO's being evidence of actual alien life visitations - no matter how small that chance is - from the IPU construction.
If we change "A" to the class of things actually believed by some people, but without (convincing) evidence, then the IPU argument doesn't meet the standard, while alien life passes? This also includes sasquatch, nessie, cryptozoology, etc. right?
Of course, I don't see any reason to support the artificial IPU argument at all, as I don't think it can be compared to other cases of things where we have no (convincing) evidence pro or con.
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 115 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2009 9:38 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 7:44 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024