Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

My only point was that subjective experiences are factual to the person having them.

---

Well, no. No, they're not. They're subjective to the person having them. That doesn't make them factual or any random hallucination or dream becomes a fact. Are you saying that you consider your dreams to be real?

quote:

---

What's with the we? Who was talking to you?

---

Everyone. This is a public forum and all posts go out to all who view it. This isn't a "Great Debate" thread where only two people are involved. Everybody's here and everybody is talking.

quote:

---

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.

---

And we don't accept it as evidence in other venues, why the special pleading here?

quote:

---

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?

---

When dealing with external realities? To expand upon the question that I put to shalamabobbi: How many people do you know restrict their claims of god to, "This is only my opinion because I was the only one who had the experience" and then expect to be taken seriously?On top of that, Rahvin was talking about the existence of deities when saying that subjective experience is not evidence. You came waltzing in to say that it is evidence of the person having the subjective experience.Well, yes...a subjective experience is evidence of existence of the person having it. After all, how can there be an experience without someone to experience it? But that isn't useful since the question is about the existence of the deity, not the person having a funny feeling about the existence of the deity.Thus my request for you not to play dumb. Nobody denies the existence of the subjective experience. It's that this subjective experience being evidence of objective reality that is in question.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Straggler, Yeah, I know. I generally keep to my mental note of not posting when drunk. Apologies for the time wasty pit-nikin.Mark

So are all hypotheses merely subjective opinion? And who is claiming that hypotheses are the same as evidence? Hypotheses are derived from evidence. By the terms of your OP alien life and the IPU are logically equivalent.The reason that they are not actually equivalent is because of indirect evidence.Your wider argument regarding the non-equivalence of the IPU and deities has been thoroughly refuted. If you omit any concept of indirect evidence then yes the two are logically the same.If indirect evidence is deemed to be both important and to potentially increase confidence then factoring that in will make the two propositions non-equivalent.If you deny that indirect evidence has any validity at all then you deny that reasoned scientific hypotheses are any different to wholly subjective opinion. And thus you deny the validity of the scientific method as a whole.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Lots of edits - Trying to entertain a 3 year old whilst debating online is no easy task.

RAZD, Not really, there are two things going on here. 1/ There is no evidence of alien life. 2/ The possibility of alien life is raised by objective, though tentative calculations.Everybody seems to roughly agree to this, the difference seems to reside in the wording.I've totally forgotten why it's important to your argument?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

No worries.I have posted all too many booze inspired irrelevencies that seemed deeply poigniant at the time.............

Ok lets get into it then. Rrhain, I would almost have to ask you to define "real" to answer that question. But I will attempt based off of my interpretation of "real".The body that you/me/we experience right now, the thing we call the physical body, is really the phenomenal body, or the body image. In a dream you also experience the body image. When you dream you make a distinction, "thats just dream stuff", but what is the actual difference? And, if you take seriously the insight that one experiences in lucid dreams and the fact that you can control them as you do your physical body image, it can profoundly change the way you look at the "real" world.What you/me/we are experiencing right now is a kind of dream, a special case of dreaming, one in which what I am dreaming is constrained by the sensory input from whatever this thing called the "real/physical" world is. My experience is in my mind, yours in your mind, and we happen to be interacting in this third space called the physical world. But, we don't know how those different spaces(mental, physical) relate to each other. We don't really know whether it makes sense to think of a mental space entirely separate from the physical space, or whether they are in some sense the same thing.So, yes...I would say dreams are as real as what we experience in the physical world just in a different space. It seems like RAZD and Percy are doing just that. Why would you have to take them seriously or not if they've already established that the experience was by them for them? Nor do they claim anything empirical about the experience.The main point to the OP is that the IPU's are not logical arguments, which, if we can dream it, then it's subjective, as subjective as claims for diesm, and as such ARE logical arguments.However, I would also argue that anything that is dreamed and/or experienced subjectively is as real as anything experienced objectively, they just take place in two different spaces(mental, physical) - but are those two spaces really that separate or are they the same thing? My apologies if I misread the context of his statement. I read "they are not evidence. Period"...to which I replied that they are. No further was intended, but I see your point about it being specifically for the existance of a diety. Edited by onifre, : shits and gigglesEdited by onifre, : spelling

---

"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

Well, we're reaching the 'halfway' point.I think all parties can agree that it would be incorrect to bring up the IPU in relation to a belief in entities that it is not comparable to.RAZD thinks the IPU equally applies to alien life and nobody else seems to think that is the case. Let's skip past the alien life question and see if we can reach agreement in another sphere entirely. I think there are some entities that the IPU is comparable to, stop me if you think I'm wrong:1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster
2. The intangible face raping squid
3. Russell's Teapot
4. Carl Sagan's Garage DragonIf someone proposed that they believed any of the above were entities that definitely did exist, we might say..."Why?""Faith.", may come the answer."Why do you have faith in the Garage Dragon, and not the IPU?", comes the response."Because the IPU is an absurd made up entity - your comparison is thus illogical. You believe that life might have originated naturally even without having seen direct evidence that it did; we all have different world views and where evidence is lacking we make a subjective leap based on those worldviews.""I think you might have missed the point.""I don't think so.""Can you explain why you believe the Garage Dragon exists, is there anything that makes it different to the IPU?""Faith in the Garage Dragon is not rational.""Is faith in the IPU rational?""No.""Is there any reason to pick one over the other?""But you believe that life originated naturally...and poster X doesn't, so it must have something or other to do with worldviews. Faith isn't about reason.""So let's get back to that whole 'Faith isn't rational/isn't about reason thing.'""OK""Welcome to the point.""I never disagreed with that point.""Then what's the problem?""The IPU argument is illogical because it doesn't apply to some other example!""But it does apply to the Garage Dragon, the thing we were originally talking about?""That's off topic.""Oh."

---

No actual poster's positions were harmed during the making of this silly halfway point post. If you look carefully however, a few points of my own might be inferred from the text.

I would be interested to know what you think of this.The generalised form of RAZD's example is as follows:Evidenced concepts are concepts
Un-evidenced concepts are concepts.If you believe in evidenced concepts you should therefore believe in un-evidenced concepts too.Atheist: I only believe in evidenced concepts. I do not believe in un-evidenced concepts.RAZD: Aha special pleading! A logical fallacy.Yes it is special pleading. Special pleading on the grounds of objective evidence.Whether or not that is fallacious depends on whether or not you agree that objective evidence is a valid reason for belief.So special pleading on the basis of objective evidence separates the possibility of alien life and the IPU.What special pleading separates deities and other such entities from the IPU?In essence the argument will come down to who has the form of "special pleading" that is objective and definable rather than subjectively ambiguous.Interested in your thoughts.......

Straggler, Except that it isn't special pleading. "Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption."I believe no evidence is "adequate justification".Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

And I would agree with you. But someone who believes that subjective faith provides the best means to uncovering the truth and who has no regard for objective evidence would disagree.They would say that you are special pleading the role of objective evidence over faith.And they would be technically correct. The point is that placing objective evidence over faith is demonstrably superior with regard to uncovering the 'truth'.Thus the "special pleading" in favour of objective evidence is justified whatever our friend of faith may think.If we agree that objective evidence is justified "special pleading" then what justifiable special pleading is required to seperate the IPU from deities and gods?

Straggler,
I think I might have used the word 'definitely' in my previous post, this is probably an unfair characterization of RAZD's position, though I don't think it changes my point.Inference to the best explanationThis is what RAZD seems to be skipping for some reason, at least in my opinion. He brings up the possibility of UFOs containing aliens^†. Let's take an example, here is a real drawing of a UFO eyewitness:So what's the inference we should come to here? Is it more reasonable to conclude that we were visited by aliens in a familiar looking interstellar craft, given the fact that aliens could exist, space travel is technically possible etc? Or is it better to conclude that it was a helicopter, given that helicopters do exist and are seen regularly?And to paraphrase Hume's reasoning for a moment:

quote:

---

No testimony is sufficient to establish the existence of an entity unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....

---

The problem is, in my opinion, how do we infer to the best explanation between the Garage-Dragon and the IPU? There doesn't seem to be a way, so picking one seems arbitrary and defending that choice could rely on special pleading.However, if an argument was put forward defending the Garage-Dragon, that wouldn't necessarily be special pleading. There might actually be reasons for preferring one to the other (Maybe we prefer Carl Sagan to some random internet guy, this wouldn't be special pleading for Garage-Dragons but it would be an erroneous argument from authority at the very least).If you construct a reasonable argument as to why 'entity/argument x' is different to 'entity/argument y' then preferring one over the other is not necessarily special pleading, even if there is a problem in the argument elsewhere. It might be however, that upon deconstructing the argument we find that special pleading is still involve.And that is one of the points of the IPU argument isn't it? To show how believing in the Garage-Dragon (or G-D^*) over the IPU might be special pleading. If only someone would come and tell us why G-D is different enough from the IPU so that special pleading doesn't enter into it -- this would constitute defence against the IPU argument.Here's the killer: IF alien life was comparable to the IPU in the same way that G-D is THEN the IPU argument does still apply. So RAZD's position would still not be made for him. He'd just show that we were special pleading for alien life and not that the IPU argument fails in some way (if anything, he'd just show us that she is a more powerful and flexible beast than we realized!). If the last hundred-odd posts show us anything, there is at least a lot of argument possible as to why the two are different. Now we just need to see if any of the G-D supporters can provide similar quality of argument.

---

^† I appreciate the UFOs were brought up for reasons other than what I am discussing here, but I thought it raised an interesting enough point to be worth raising this from a different angle. The 'logic train' argument I think, has been successfully dealt with elsewhere.
^* You see what I did there?Edited by Modulous, : adding UFO disclaimer

Oh, and to more directly answer the question, there isn't an answer.It's philosophy all the way down from here to metaphysics. Why choose one philosophy over another? Do we even choose philosophies, or if the determinists are right, are we simply compelled by certain sound/light waves to believe certain propositions are 'better' than others?Still - I'm going with the pragmatists. One method builds computers, the other builds arguments that sound good (or not).

Then what are you calling "indirect evidence" - it is either evidence or it isn't. If it is how you personally interpret evidence then it is hypothesis and subjective opinion:If there is life on earth, then there is a probability of alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.If there is intelligent life on earth, then there is a probability of intelligent alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.Further, if there is intelligent alien life, then it is probable that some alien life is more intelligent than humans (and some that is less intelligent than humans) ... and if more intelligent alien life is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.If there is space traveling life on earth, then there is a probability of space traveling alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.Further, if there is space traveling alien life, then it is probable that some space traveling alien life is more technological advanced than humans (and some that is less technological advanced than humans) ... and if more technological advanced space traveling alien life is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased. No, the terms of the OP are that comparing them as equivalent is a logical fallacy. Both are based on the same direct evidence: our experience of life on earth, the known numbers of planets, etc.. The only difference is the degree of extrapolation, not in the kind of extrapolation:If there is life on earth, then there is a probability of alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.If there is intelligent life on earth, then there is a probability of intelligent alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.If there is space traveling life on earth, then there is a probability of space traveling alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.Further, if there is intelligent alien life, then it is probable that some alien life is more intelligent than humans (and some that is less intelligent than humans) ... and if more intelligent alien life is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.If there is space traveling life on earth, then there is a probability of space traveling alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.Further, if there is space traveling alien life, then it is probable that some space traveling alien life is more technological advanced than humans (and some that is less technological advanced than humans) ... and if more technological advanced space traveling alien life is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.Does, or does not, the increase in the number of planets increase the likelihood of alien visitations?Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your argument has been that a logical extrapolation, originally based on direct evidence, is fundamentally different from the IPU, no matter how tenuous the extrapolation from that evidence becomes. Thus, by your argument, the concept of the existence of alien life, and the concept of alien visitations to earth are on the same side of the tenuous extrapolation from our experience with life on earth, while the IPU concept is on the another side.Would you, or would you not, agree that one can make some scientific type predictions about alien visitations, that such visitations could result in occasional sightings of aliens and alien spacecraft?Do you, or do you not, agree that there are records - no matter how anecdotal and prone to error, etc. - of people claiming actual experience of occasional sightings of aliens and alien spacecraft?Do you, or do you not, agree that such claims could also be "indirect evidence" of alien visitations? So you do agree that this "indirect evidence" for alien visitations makes it similar to the question of the existence of alien life?Perhaps your rush to try to conclude this thread is due to inherent the contradiction between your position on alien life and on alien visitations. I thought one of the marks of an atheist was that they didn't need to inject god/s into every conversation.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) • • •

Well precisely. It is evidence.You therefore agree that alien life is evidenced.Why was that so hard? Cognitive dissonance? On what grounds? Evidence?So on what grounds are the IPU and deities not logically equivalent?As for the rest of your post regarding UFOs and other apparantly on topic entities (despite still insisting that the real deistic issue is off topic - avoidance tactic anyone? - :rolleyes - I refer you to here: Message 242This more than adequately answers all your points. Maybe come back to me once you actually know what my position is regarding such claims.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thank you onifire, Very good. Nor do I (we?) expect anyone to believe\follow because of our say so. Yes, and regardless of what actually occurred, the person is still left with an experience that they would not otherwise have, they know they experienced it.When I stub my toe in the dark, and then turn on the light, but am unable to determine what I stubbed by toe on, that failure to objectively substantiate the stubbing event does not diminish the experience of having stubbed a toe. When I experience love, I cannot explain it, or show any objective evidence for it, quantify it or make predictions based on it, and if I tell you about it, you will not able to reproduce the love I experience.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) • • •