Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Absence of Evidence..............
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 51 of 138 (467930)
05-25-2008 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mick
05-25-2008 5:33 PM


Point Taken
Point well made.
My OP was aimed at claims that define themselves as inherently untestable or un-empirical in some way.
A claim of untestability is the difference between the examples I gave and the examples you detail.
However the point you make with regard to absence of evidence and assumed validity of conclusions in a different practical context is wholly valid and I have no disagreement with it at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mick, posted 05-25-2008 5:33 PM mick has not replied

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


(1)
Message 52 of 138 (467938)
05-25-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
05-24-2008 7:26 PM


Re: Irrelevant
IF there is a God and IF man has a spirit that will live forever would you please explain to me how I will not have empirical evidence.
Will you please explain to me how you will have empirical evidence?
I assume this will be scientifically verifiable, independentaly corroborated evidence?
No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 05-24-2008 7:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 05-25-2008 8:27 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 58 of 138 (468043)
05-26-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
05-25-2008 9:35 PM


Re: No empirical evidence
The fact we thought they had all died out is a stupid example and a stupid argument in the context of evidence for things which are inherently non-empirical. An argument that frankly Raz is beneath you.
Then I'm afraid you don't really understand my argument.
OK. My interpretation of your argument did seem uncharacteristically stupid so I am quite prepared to admit that any stupidity is a result of my misunderstanding rather than your argument.
So what did you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2008 9:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2008 6:27 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 59 of 138 (468045)
05-26-2008 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICANT
05-25-2008 8:27 PM


Re: Irrelevant
The first thing is I will be alive, I will see God and then Grandma and Grandpa, Daddy and the whole gang.
I will even get to see you and you can do your own verification at some point in the future. Would that be verifiable enough for you.
See? See as in detect the reflection of electromagnetic waves with your eyes?
Would you hear us all too? Hear as in detect longditudinal vibrations within a medium?
Would you be able to touch us too?
Etc. etc.
Which of your physical senses will ou retain in heaven and how? Are the things you speak of really "empirical"?
I had no idea the spirit/soul world was so physical.
Given all of the physical attributes it seems sould/spirits have it makes me wonder why we don't just exist as spirits/souls before death too? What exactly is the difference between a soul and a body?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 05-25-2008 8:27 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 05-27-2008 3:22 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 64 by bluescat48, posted 05-27-2008 11:57 AM Straggler has not replied

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


(1)
Message 60 of 138 (468048)
05-26-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Archer Opteryx
05-25-2008 10:20 PM


Re: Unicorns
No dispute. Just seeking precision.
Truth may be expressed as symbol or as fact.
Insisting that your invisible pink unicorn is 'true' does nothing to clarify how truth is expressed in it. Is this symbolic or factual truth? Is your unicorn subject or object?
We have already established that, physically speaking, its existence is impossible. That rules out the existence of the unicorn as a physical object. But the comfort is gives you is (ahem) undeniably real. This points toward a subjective reality for the unicorn.
No no. Not at all. The invisible pink unicorn is actually real!! Physically and spiritually real. The IPU can interract both with the physical world and the with the hidden world of pinkdom.
If you would just open your mind as I have done you would know this too.
You are getting sidetracked by the physiclal manifestation of the IPU within the limited bounds of our physical perception. In these limited terms the IPU obviously cannot be both physically pink and physically invisible simultaneously. How th IPU achieves invisibility is unknown to me. It could be magic. It could be that it is derived from a technology far greater than we can comprehend. Either way it does not detract from the fact that the IPU is objectively real despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence for it's existence.
If we could see him he would be pink but his pinkness is inherent to his very being and much more than just the wavelengths he chooses to reflect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-25-2008 10:20 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

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


(1)
Message 61 of 138 (468050)
05-26-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Marcosll
05-26-2008 8:23 AM


Re: Evidence
Not sure what you're on about here. I suppose you can either believe in unwitnessed miracles or not believe in them.
So if I told you I had just witnessed a miracle you would belive me? Case closed? Miracles happen.
Wrong. Someone may have had a personal experience where they have witnessed something which to them seems as real as this very text you're reading. You can call it "personal prejudice" but sometimes seeing is believing (or experiencing).
Seeing things nobody else can see implies you are seeing things that are not actually there. In other words delusion at best or madness in extreme cases.
Again, to those who have experienced it, it would be unfair to call it personal prejudice or philosophical bais.
As above.
Depends... absence of physical evidence? So if my friend takes an extasy pill and sees elves and I don't take one does that mean I have no physical evidence that those pills helped him see elves?
You have physical evidence that your friend believes that he saw elves. There is a subtle but very importnat difference. I don't dispute what he thinks he saw. I dispute the objective physical reality of what he actually saw.
"In practice is not the default position for everyone disbelief rather than belief almost all of the time? Exceptions are then made, by some, with regard to the extraordinary claims of religion and other aspects of the supernatural which are deemed ”untestable’."
So if, during a court case, some eye witnesses say they saw Mr. Smith stab Mrs. Smith repeatedly with a knife, the jury's position here should be disbelief rather than belief all of the time? I think not!
Don't be an idiot. An eye witness account is empirical evidence if it corroborates other phyical objective evidence.
An eye witness acoount with no other physical evidence (no body, no weapon, no suggestion of murder at all in fact) should rightly be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Empirical evidence is just a peice of the puzzle. Sometimes it's an important piece, other time's it's not even required. In science, empirical evidence is one of the foundations for any rule.
You are not the first person to say this but none have yet given a convincing arguemnt for the inclusion of any other forms of evidence.
What form s of evidence are you advocating and on what grounds?
Please give an example of such "evidence" and the conclusion that was derived from this evidence.
Yes, we all do this every day constantly. It's called taking someone's word for it. In fact, most of us have been taught in school many things without us having any evidence for them. We just believed them. Same applies to the TV. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?
Bollocks. We assess the validity of claims for which we do not have direct physical evidence on a lifetime of empirical experience of what is and what is not empirically likely.
If I tell you I saw a cat this morning you would probably believe me. This is mundane and everyday. You have personal empirical experience of cats and know that they are common.
If I told you I saw a unicorn today I doubt you would believe me quite so readily. Because you have no empirical experience that suggests unicorns are likely.
Don't confuse direct evidence for a claim with a lifetime of empirical evidence that allows us to accurately evaluate the validity of various claims.
Good question. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the great majority of the time we don't have any evidence ourselves and we must act based upon what we think to be true based on what others have told us.
Again - We believe others when they make claims that our own empirical experience tells us are reasonable. Our evidence for these claims is effectively a wealth of day to day empirical experience.
When claims are made that are contrary to our empirical experience we do not believe such claims without additional objective evidence.
I have covered this subject previously here http://EvC Forum: Probability of the existence of God -->EvC Forum: Probability of the existence of God
I suggest that you use the 'Reply' button rather than use the general post option. That way people get notified of your contributions and can respond accordingly.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Marcosll, posted 05-26-2008 8:23 AM Marcosll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Marcosll, posted 05-29-2008 8:15 AM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 62 of 138 (468057)
05-26-2008 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Grizz
05-25-2008 4:41 PM


Rationality of Empiricism
Scientific empiricism(sometimes referred to as Scientism) states that the empirical methods of science are the only valid means of arriving at facts, inferences, or conclusions about the nature of the world. The irony is that neither the rejection of empiricism nor its acceptance can be established by empirical inquiry and is grounded in reason rather than measurement. It is axiomatic and is entirely a metaphysical presupposition.
I am absolutely thrilled with this line of argument.
I am sure that to those that have studied philosophy in depth this is an obvious and well explored conclusion. But it is the first time it has been meaningfully pointed out to me.
I have to agree with Mike that the empirical results of empiricism justify it in purely practical terms.
However as a logical argument the circularity of this is obvious and as such the position taken in the OP, whilst I maintain is indisputable in terms of rational conclusion and practical application, is not something that I think can be advocated in terms of it's own criteria.
I find the irony of this marvellous!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Grizz, posted 05-25-2008 4:41 PM Grizz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-27-2008 9:01 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 66 of 138 (468144)
05-27-2008 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Archer Opteryx
05-27-2008 1:13 PM


Re: Unicorns
If you claim your unicorn is real in some other way--as a symbol, as a concept, as a metaphysical object--then we can talk.
So what kind of truth for it are you claiming?
I suppose that metaphysical is the closest of the options available. However that is not to say that the IPU cannot manifest itself physically should it choose to do so (at that point it would be pink but not invisible in purely physical terms whilst retaining it's inherent pinkiness in metaphysical terms at all times).
It also should not be thought that the IPU's metaphysical nature stops him from interracting with the physical world when he so wills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-27-2008 1:13 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

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


(1)
Message 68 of 138 (468158)
05-27-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Archer Opteryx
05-27-2008 2:54 PM


Say What?
As things stand with regard to your position I am still unclear as to the precise difference between physical evidence and empirical evidence.
Empirical refers to a method, to a way we think of something. The brain itself is a physical object, not an 'empirical' one.
Yes but slicing it in half, which was the example you gave, has some very empirical effects.
If we have a pickled brain in a jar in our biology lab, that brain is a physical object. We can study that brain empirically. But the object of our interest is not itself 'empirical.' It couldn't care less how we study it.
I loathe arguments that are based on dictionary definitions so I will avoid that. However in my OP regarding 'empirical evidence' and 'non-empirical forms of evidence' I thought it obvious that by 'empirical evidence' I referred to evidence that is objectively observable (either directly or indirectly) and by non-empirical evidence I referred to evidence which is not objectively observable.
If there is confusion between the use of the terms empirical and physical it is because in the context of evidence I can see little to separate them.
Are you suggesting that there is a form of empirical evidence that is not physical?
Are you suggesting hat there is a form of non-empirical evidence that is physical?
If not then I think in this context you are splitting hairs unnecessarily and being pedantic in the extreme.
Back before it was pickled in formaldehyde, in the days when that brain sat perched inside a skull and was being used by somebody, it employed both empirical and non-empirical ways of thinking.
The brains inside our own skulls, the brains you and I use today as we study the pickled brain in the lab, also use both empirical and non-empirical ways of thinking.
I don't think I ever suggested that all thought is empirical as such. Only that all thought is rooted in the physical. I would extend this to logically suggest that the nature of thought could therefore be studied empirically. In principle at least.
The topic at hand is the nature of empirical evidence Vs other forms of evidence. I fail to see how the argument (which I seem to agree with) that not all thought is empirical contributes to this in any way at all?
When I offered the human brain's multiple functions as evidence that both empirical and non-empirical ways of thinking have their value, you declared empiricism the winner on the premise that brains themselves are 'empirical.' They are not. Brains are physical objects. They may do things in empirical and non-empirical ways when they are alive. But these words refer to ways brains do things, not to the brains themselves.
Given that the topic of discussion is empirical evidence and it's relative value I had assumed that your brain example was intended to show that non-empirical forms of evidence were somehow valid.
If all you are saying is that there is more to human thought than drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence then I am with you 100%. Art, literature, emotion etc. are not things I am suggesting that we do without!!! The key question posed in my OP is -
Is not empirical evidence the only basis on which reliable conclusions can be made? The only form of evidence that can ultimately establish the truth or otherwise of any given claim? The only form of evidence that actually warrants the term “evidence”?
You seem to have flown off on a tangent regarding the fact that not all human thought relates to making reliable concusions. I never claimed that it did and would never propose that it should.
In your opinion would a suitably futuristic MRA scanner show a physical/empirical basis behind every thought, emotion etc. etc. or is there "something else" that defines this non-empirical stance of yours?
This question is impossible to answer as worded.
Then let me reword it.
In your view is all thought manifested by (potentially detectable) physical processes (technology allowing) in the brain or are there elements of thought for which you would claim no physical manifestation to be present and thus no empirical evidence to exist?
The main problem with it is the assumption that I took a 'non-empirical stance.' Not so. I used empirical means to show the validity of non-empirical modes of thought.
The undisputed validity of types of thought and their respective validity with regard to drawing reliable conclusions are not one and the same.
The main problem with it is the assumption that I took a 'non-empirical stance.' Not so. I used empirical means to show the validity of non-empirical modes of thought.
To make any of this relevant to the subject at hand I need to see how you relate this example to evidence and the drawing of reliable conclusions. The validity of imagination (for example) is not at question. The comparative validity of such non-empirical modes of thought when used as a tool with which to draw reliable conclusions is at question.
  • What exactly is the non-empirical evidence in your brain example?
  • What is the conclusion being drawn based on this evidence?
  • Is the conclusion reliable?
    If your argument in favour on non-empirical modes of thought cannot be translated into an example of evidence and conclusion then, again, I fail to see any relevance to any of what you have said to the topic at hand. The topic of reliable evidence based conclusions
    Another problem with the question is that the choice it poses is weird. It's like being asked 'Do you think it will rain tomorrow or is there something else that defines this sunny disposition of yours?'
    I predict rain based on my empirical knowledge but I hope it is sunny based on my very non-empirical modes of ever optimistic thought. However I know which of these two modes of thought I would actually rely on to make reliable conclusions.
    Say what?
    Yes good question. What does any of your post have to do with the validity of different types of evidence?
    ABE - Happy Birthday by the way
    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 67 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-27-2008 2:54 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

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


    (1)
    Message 70 of 138 (468162)
    05-27-2008 6:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
    05-27-2008 6:27 PM


    Re: No empirical evidence
    Ah I see. I think.
    But I would argue that our skepticism or lack of it in each case is based on the empirical. Our empirical experience and prior empirical evidence is the basis on which we judge the likelihood of such claims.
  • Claims for the sighting of a unicorn are likley to result in general derision and ridicule.
  • Claims for the sighting of a cat are likely to result in bored but accepting indifference.
  • Claims for the sighting of a 'thought to be recently extinct' species are likely to result in deep interest and the requirement for further objective evidence to support the claim.
    Nobody has ever found any empirical evidence for unicorns.
    We all have too much empirical evidence of cats. So much that we can validly evaluate a claim as reasonable without any further direct evidence for the case in point being sought.
    We have some empirical evidence of the "extinct" species in question. Enough to make the claim potentially believable in light of further empirical evidence.
    The fact that we do not have material evidence in front of us for each and every claim does not mean that the assessment of the validity of a given claim is not ultimately based on empirical evidence.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 69 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2008 6:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


    (1)
    Message 72 of 138 (468182)
    05-28-2008 8:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 71 by Archer Opteryx
    05-27-2008 9:01 PM


    Re: Rationality of Empiricism
    All forms of knowledge, when you trace the threads, just take you further back into your own skull. Ultimately, it's all in our heads.
    But this is ultimately not true is it? It is not all in our heads.
    The whole basis of empiricism is to verify aspects of an external objective reality by virture of independent corroboration with other independent conscious beings who inhabit and perceive the same objective reality as ourselves.
    Whilst individual perceptions of reality may well be "in our heads" the reality that we are each individually and subjectively perceiving is not.
    Thus we are able to come to meaningful common conclusions regarding the nature of reality in a way that is inherently impossible with regard to purely subjective thoughts or feelings which have no physical manifestation external to ourselves.
    Unless we genuinely assume that you are a brain in a jar (or some other such metaphor) imagining all that you subjectively perceive with no basis in reality and no opportunity for the independent corroboration of an external reality with other independent conscious beings - Unless we assume this rather nihilistic and pointless scenario, empirical evidence will always be a superior form of determining the "truths" of reality.
    Indeed I argue that it is the only form of evidence worthy of the name evidence.
    Empiricism's value is indeed practical. It's value does not lie in taking us to The Truth™. That's why scientists usually take care to distinguish the two.
    I think most scientists fundamentally believe that they are searching for the "truths" of nature. Necessary scientific tentativity is the very rational response to the fact that we can never knowingly declare that we have all of the relevant evidence.
    Whether this aim for "truth" is genuinely and ultimately achievable given our limited and subjective perception is another and more philosophical question. However some sort of ever increasing verisimilitude (as in reflection of, or approximation to, truth and reality) must be the aim of scientific theories and empiricism as a whole.
    What is the root of the undisputed practical succes of empiricism if it is not the proximity of it's findings to "truth"?
    None of the information from the scanner has meaning--there is no 'information' at all--until someone thinks about it.
    I think you are confusing and conflating forms of thinking, information etc. with evidence. The superiority of empirical evidence and the practical conclusions that are available in the absence of such evidence was the original topic of this thread.
    Your arguments are different (and frankly more interesting) than the ones I was expecting but I still don't see how they refute the stated conclusion of the OP. Namely, that empirical evidence is the only form of evidence from which any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-27-2008 9:01 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

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


    (1)
    Message 74 of 138 (468436)
    05-29-2008 12:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 73 by Marcosll
    05-29-2008 8:15 AM


    Re: Evidence
    Please give an example of such "evidence" and the conclusion that was derived from this evidence."
    FIRST HAND WITNESS ACCOUNTS. Sigh.
    You are kind of missing the point here.
    Nobody here is declaring first hand witness accounts as a form of non-empirical evidence. You seem to be confusing non-empirical evidence with uncorroborated and (thus unreliable) empirical evidence.
    If an eye witness claims that they saw something then this is very obviously empirical in the sense that it was observable. Without independent verification of the observation we cannot be sure that they did actually observe said phenomenon. It is possible that they imagined it in which case the phenomenon would obviously not be empirically verifiable. In the case of personal subjective claims additional physical evidence may well be required to discount this possibility.
    However this is a very different question to the one of inherently unverifiable non-empirical evidence.
    Non-empirical evidence would be of the form where there could be no independent corroboration because the "evidence" in question is purely personal and subjective by it's very nature. Feelings of having a soul, claims for undetectable personal auras etc. etc. etc. Things which are inherently physically undetectable. Things for which any form of corroborating evidence is actually impossible.
    Nobody has claimed that UFO sightings are non-empirical in this sense. The very fact they are called sightings tells you that they should be inherently observable and thus very definitely empirically detectable.
    The question then becomes one of likelihood.
    Were the claimed sightings actually observed or were they imagined? Is there any corroborating evidence to eliminate the possibility of imagination? If we can be reasonably confident that the effect was not imagined and there was an actual observation (e.g. if more than one person witnessed the phenomenon) then are there other more likley sources for the phenomenon than visiting aliens (e.g. attempted hoaxes, shooting stars, unusual weather conditions, everyday aircraft etc. etc.).
    The problem with evidence for UFOs is not that it is inherently non-empirical and thus inherently unverifiable.
    The problem with UFO sightings is that for a phenomenon that should be so empirically verifiable there is so little concrete empirical evidence.
    Endless personal accounts backed up by no corroborating evidence.
    Endless sightings of the mysterious that are perhaps better explained by the mundane.
    Very occasionally a genuinely mysterious case arises. However even in such cases leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions hardly seems reasonable.
    Taking the line - "If we cannot explain something it must be aliens" - is not a reasonable conclusion.
    On the basis that there is a complete absence of corroborating or reliable evidence for alien visitors I remain deeply skeptical.
    If you told me you saw a cat with two heads I would probably doubt you. But I'd be a fool to state that a cat with two heads cannot possibly exist.
    No it is not impossible. But it is unlikely.
    What would it take to convince you that I really had seen a cat with two heads? Empirical evidence?
    Not once have I used the word certain or impossible. The more extraordinary the claim the more evidence we require. The only reliable evidence in such circumstances is empirical evidence.
    Which of that do you actually disagree with?
    Closed-minded: lacking tolerance or flexibility or breadth of view.
    Given that you have yet to understand what is being said that is yet to be ascertained.
    And you? Gullible, irrational and easily influenced? That too remains to be seen.
    Remember "Evidence is not the plural of anecdote" - Ex(?) EvC Member Phat.
    Watch out for those pesky aliens!!!
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 73 by Marcosll, posted 05-29-2008 8:15 AM Marcosll has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 75 by Marcosll, posted 05-30-2008 10:31 AM Straggler has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 76 of 138 (468573)
    05-30-2008 12:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 75 by Marcosll
    05-30-2008 10:31 AM


    Re: Evidence
    - Lack of empirical evidence doesn't prove that something doesn't exist (neither does it prove that it does exist).
    - When we lack empirical evidence for a rare or dificult-to-physically-detect observation we must propose possible explanations.
    -Dismissing things as impossible based on our current knowledge of the universe is the easy thing to do.
    There is no such thing as proof outside of mathematics.
    Evidence based investigation does not deal in proof and certainty. It deals in likelihood.
    I have never once claimed that lack of empirical evidence disproves anything. Nor actually have I claimed that empirical evidence proves anything.
    It is not about proof or certainty it is about valid conclusions and invalid conclusions.
    When we lack empirical evidence for a rare or dificult-to-physically-detect observation we must propose possible explanations.
    -Dismissing things as impossible based on our current knowledge of the universe is the easy thing to do.
    Again you utterly fail to understand.
    I do not dispute that it is quite possible for there to be an empirical basis on which to base further research into as yet unobserved phenomenon.
    However if all steps that can reasonably be taken have been taken, if we are confident that our failure to detect is not merely due to the limitation of our technologies, then do we continue to believe regardless? In practical terms there must come a point where the only justifiable conclusion that can be made in the absence of empirical evidence is the absence of existence.
    Some things (e.g. the existence of the soul) are claimed to be inherently undetectable. For such things the only rational conclusion must be that that such a thing does not exist.
    Some things (e.g. the existence of alien lifeforms) have a firm enough empirical basis (the fact that life originated on Earth, the fact that there are milions of other planets hospitable and conducive to the existence of life as we know it) on which to base further investigation. Investigation that is inherently hampered by limited technology but that without which we can make no firm conclusions either way.
    In the case of alien lifeforms we have not as yet reached this point - BUT eventually there must come a point with regard to every claim where the absence of any positive evidence whatsoever indicates deep improbability of the claim being true. In such circumstances the only rational and practical conclusion available is that the phenomenon under consideration does not exist. No matter how much people may want it to exist or believe that it does exist.
    Straggler has said previously -
    In the absence of empirical evidence what conclusions can we justifiably draw?
    Marcosll writes -
    Alas my friend it is you who is entirely missing the point.
    Well lets see. So far your examples have failed to differentiate between claims for which there is poor, unreliable or insufficient empirical evidence with claims for which there is no empirical evidence at all.
    What claim for which there is no empirical evidence whatsoever do you feel is justified?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 75 by Marcosll, posted 05-30-2008 10:31 AM Marcosll has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 78 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 4:27 PM Straggler has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 80 of 138 (468607)
    05-30-2008 6:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 77 by randman
    05-30-2008 4:24 PM


    Re: big problem
    The simple fact is empirical evidence is unreliable as a standard and must be tempered with subjective evidence from one's own life.
    In all your examples you confuse personal empirical experience with wholly subjective thoughts and feelings. Personal empirical experience may well be at odds with accepted scientific thinking. That is neither here nor there in this context.
    Nothing is wholly reliable and even less is certain. But empirical evidence (including empirical experience) is the only means of making conclusions that are even remotely reliable.
    Saying I have a soul because I personally feel that I have a soul is very different to saying that in my personal experience whenever people get cold there seems to be greater chance of them catching a cold.
    Subjective and personal are not necessarily the same thing. Wholly subjective is inherently unverifiable. Personally experienced empirical experience is as potentially verifiable as any other empirical evidence.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 77 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 4:24 PM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 82 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:14 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 83 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:18 PM Straggler has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 90 of 138 (468620)
    05-30-2008 7:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 78 by randman
    05-30-2008 4:27 PM


    Re: Evidence
    Wrong. First off, the idea isn't the soul is inherently undetectable but merely we cannot detect it now, and many probably think we never could, but there is always the potential for technology to evolve whereby we can detect the soul.
    Secondly, the idea isn't even that we cannot detect the soul, but rather we subjectively can detect it.
    The only rational conclusion is that it is absurd to dismiss the existence of the soul based on limited technology and invalid assumptions about the limits of empirical inquiry.
    Hmmmm. So what research is required to verify the existence of the soul?
    What technology is it that we are missing?
    What empirical research would persuade you of the deep improbability of the existence of the soul if no evidence for it's existence could be found?
    On what empirical basis is there any reason to even think that the existence of the soul is a remote possibility? Why should we research that for which there is no evidential basis?
    To what other empirical conclusion would you apply the same standards of evidence as you would the existence of the soul?
    but rather we subjectively can detect it.
    We can subjectively "detect" anything that we are capable of imagining. This is no form of detection at all. Genuine sensory perception of an objective reality and inherently subjective imagination are not the same thing.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 4:27 PM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 95 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:28 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