Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 8 of 304 (499888)
02-21-2009 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-20-2009 8:46 PM


Vacuum of Evidence
There is no direct evidence of alien life. But there is not a vacuum of evidence regarding this question. There are a whole host of rational reasons to believe that life on other planets elsewhere in the universe is possible and even likely
It is not just preconceived world view.
There is no direct evidence for or againt deities, pink unicorns or whetever else. But there is a mass of evidence that humans create such things regardless of them actually existing or not. Thus the claimed existence of any such unevidenced entity is rendered less likely to actually exist.
It is not just a question of preconceived world view.
I kept making these points to you in the deism thread and you ignored them there, preferring instead to concentrate on the perceived insult of being confronted with a ridiculous example of the logic you were applying, so I don't expect much of a response to this either.
But in general if you don’t want to be faced with absurd examples then simply don’t base your whole position on a logical argument that fails to preclude logical conclusions that you will find absurd. If you fail to do this the absurd possibilities will be unremittingly pointed out to you. As you have experienced.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2009 8:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 9:09 AM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 12 of 304 (499892)
02-21-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
02-21-2009 8:39 AM


Re: Focus back to the topic
It seems you agree that this is a reasonable position, even though there is no convincing evidence of alien life, and that it is reasonable even though we may never see convincing evidence of alien life.
Yes. By logical extrapolation of the evidence that we do have.
The question oncerns whether they had evidence when the hypothesis was first formed, not whether or not we have evidence now.
It seems you agree that this was a reasonable position, even though at the time there was no convincing evidence of dark matter.
Well on what basis was the hypothesis derived?
Your relentless insistence that all claims for which there is no direct evidence operate in a vacuumm of ALL evidence is just bizzarre.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 8:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 9:35 AM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 40 of 304 (499957)
02-21-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
02-21-2009 9:09 AM


Practical Example - Your Logical Argument is Inadequate
Straggler writes:
There is no direct evidence of alien life. But there is not a vacuum of evidence regarding this question. There are a whole host of rational reasons to believe that life on other planets elsewhere in the universe is possible and even likely.
It seems you agree that this is a reasonable position, even though there is no convincing evidence of alien life, and that it is reasonable even though we may never see convincing evidence of alien life.
Yes. Based on the evidence that do have regarding life and the nature of the universe.
Straggler writes:
But in general if you don’t want to be faced with absurd examples then simply don’t base your whole position on a logical argument that fails to preclude logical conclusions that you will find absurd.
The issue is that what you are saying is:
C is an example of A
D is an (intentionally absurd unbelievable) example of A
E is a (believable) example of A
Therefore C = D but not E
This is still a logically flawed argument, and all you have is your preconceived ideas of what is reasonable to believe, and what is not, within the bounds of (all A).
I am crap at thinking in terms of A, B, C and D so lets break this down into something that anyone can understand.
If we knew that the universe consisted only of the Sun the moon and the planet Earth we could be all but certain that the possibility that alien life existing has been eliminated.
If the universe consisted only of the solar system as we know it, then given what we know about the chemistry and biology of life, the chances of alien life would be better, but still arguably very slim.
If we expand our universe to be the Milky Way galaxy then we increase the chances of alien life existing significantly.
If we factor in the evidence that we actually have for the size of the universe as we know it to be today then the chances of alien life increase enormously. Arguably to the point of very likely.
Now nowehere in here have we changed the fact that there is a complete absence of evidence for actual alien life. All we have done is change related parameters that affect probability.
Are you saying that in the absence of direct evidence such parameters have no effect on the plausibility of alien life actually existing?
If you are not saying this then:
Please explain how your strict logical argument deals with these changes in relative likelihood despite there being no more or less direct evidence in any particular case above
I don't think you can.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 9:09 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 02-21-2009 6:12 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 43 of 304 (499960)
02-21-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
02-21-2009 9:35 AM


Inadequate Logic
Straggler writes:
Yes. By logical extrapolation of the evidence that we do have.
Your relentless insistence that all claims for which there is no direct evidence operate in a vacuumm of ALL evidence is just bizzarre.
Thus the difference between "C is an example of A" and "D is an example of A" is based on what we consider reasonable extrapolation of what evidence we do have to support "C" or "D" and not on the form of the argument:
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = D
This difference is subjective opinion based on our world view, so while we can both agree that "D is an (intentionally absurd unbelievable) example of A" ...
... and we can both agree that "E is a (believable) example of A" ...
... we can disagree on whether "C is an example of A" is believable or unbelievable, and the relative position of either of us is not based on the argument:
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = D
As far as I can tell this logical argument fails to incorporate any notion of relative likelihood. Relative likelihood based on indirect, but nevertheless objective and indisputably relevant, factors that have nothing to do with world view.
For example if we have evidence that there are billions of planets on which life as we know it could arise then that obviously makes it more likely that alien life exists than if we have evidence telling us that there are no other planets in the universe at all.
Your strict logical argument seems completely unable to take account of such factors. Thus it is completely inadequate.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 9:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2009 6:07 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 45 of 304 (499974)
02-21-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-20-2009 8:46 PM


A B C - Blah Blah Blah
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 invisible pink unicorns.
∴ therefore, you should believe in invisible 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 invisible pink unicorns, in fact it seems quite possible - even if it may never be possible to prove that alien life exists.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.
The whole premise of the dilemma you propose is flawed.
To suggest that the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the existence of alien life elsewhere in the universe are entirely equal in all but preconceived world view is just utter bollocks.
We know humans can, and do, invent entirely fictional entities for both rational and irrational purposes.
We also know that the universe is full of planets that can potentially support life.
THESE ARE BOTH ELEMENTS OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT ARE WHOLLY RELEVANT TO THE CLAIM IN QUESTION AND WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WORLD VIEW.
There is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence.
You can A - B - C - D yourslf to death but until you consider ALL of the evidence relevant to such claims you will be logically forced to conclude that a host of silly possibilities such as the existence of the IPU are no more or less likely than the existence of other quite obviously sensible conclusions.
And frankly that just makes you look silly.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and formatting.

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

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


(1)
Message 48 of 304 (499983)
02-21-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluegenes
02-21-2009 6:07 PM


Re: Inadequate Logic
Bluegenes writes:
That's far from the only problem. RAZD is ignoring what "A" actually is. The IPU is used to satirize absurd supernatural propositions, specifically gods. Everything in "A" is an absurd god for which there is zero evidence.
RAZD's formal logic may or may not be formally flawed.
I don't think it matters. The whole concept of "absence of evidence" is just irrelevant in any practical sense.
In the genuine absence of all other evidence we are still left with the evidentially supported fact that humans are deeply prone to, and very capable of, 'making shit up'.
Any claim for which there is genuinely no other evidence, direct or indirect, must be assessed in terms of it's likelihood on that basis.
Think of any practical example you like and those things that seem plausible, such as the existence of alien life elsewhere in the universe, will be supported by reasoned conclusions based on related evidence even if no direct evidence is available.
Then think of any obviously stupid, silly and ridiculous example and I am willing to bet that the motive for human invention will be obvious (e.g. to make a point on a debate forum) and that there will be no other relevant evidence available.
No claims are made in a total vacuum of evidence. If people want to undertake the intellectual exercise of formally logicising that fantasy circumstance of utter absence of evidence then fair enough.
But in any practical sense it is a complete waste of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 02-21-2009 6:07 PM bluegenes has not replied

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


(1)
Message 49 of 304 (499986)
02-21-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by mark24
02-21-2009 6:12 PM


Re: Practical Example - Your Logical Argument is Inadequate
Straggler writes:
If we knew that the universe consisted only of the Sun the moon and the planet Earth we could be all but certain that the possibility that alien life existing has been eliminated.
If the universe consisted only of the solar system as we know it, then given what we know about the chemistry and biology of life, the chances of alien life would be better, but still arguably very slim.
If we expand our universe to be the Milky Way galaxy then we increase the chances of alien life existing significantly.
If we factor in the evidence that we actually have for the size of the universe as we know it to be today then the chances of alien life increase enormously. Arguably to the point of very likely.
Do we?
As far as we are aware, life could be so unlikely that if we rerun the universe a million times they all could be sterile. The fact is we don't know how unlikely abiogenesis is in order to be able to make such claims.
It doesn't matter. The relative probability has still been significantly increased even if the absolute probability remains too low to be considered at all likely or to actually happen.
If abiogenesis is a 1 in a trillion possibility we still have more chance of it having occurred elsewhere if we are considering a hundred other planets than no other planets.
We still have more chance of it having occurred if we are considering a million other planets than a hundred other planets.
No matter how desperately unlikely the actual occurrance may be we will always have a greater probability of it occurring the more planets with conditions conducive to life there are.
Quibble about the actual likelihood if you want. But there can be no doubt that the probability increases as we increase the number of possible instances. That is just maths.
Relative likelihood is what we are talking about here.
RAZD's logical argument completely fails to incorporate any such notions and is thus inadequate in any practical sense.
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 47 by mark24, posted 02-21-2009 6:12 PM mark24 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 63 of 304 (500057)
02-22-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
02-22-2009 10:24 AM


Are You ICANT in Disguise?
For me the second issue is what we consider sufficient or convincing evidence, pro or con, and what we regard as insufficient or unconvincing evidence, pro or con, and this can well be the topic of another thread, as it involves all the elements of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, consilience with world views and delusions.
I just want to point out that we have a spectrum of replies on the believability of alien life in the universe, and I suggest to you that the difference is in what people consider sufficient or convincing evidence, vs insufficient or unconvincing evidence, and not on the logic of the conclusion.
The number of planets in the universe is neither a product of world view nor a subjective conclusion.
If you have genuinely concluded that the number of planets (i.e. the number of possible hosts for extraterrestrial life) in the universe has no bearing on the probability of extraterretrial life actually existing elsewhere in the universe then I fear that there is no hope for you.
Your relentless refusal to factor in indirect objective evidence that affects relative likelihood and your relentless insistence that we consider every directly unevidenced claim in such a vacuum of ALL evidence is both baffling and making you look quite silly.
Are you sure that you and ICANT have not swapped logins...or brains....or something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 10:24 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 64 of 304 (500062)
02-22-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
02-22-2009 10:35 AM


RAZD's Cognitive Dissonance
One of the results of cognitive dissonance is to (or attempt to) reframe the issue in familiar terms, ones that fit your world view (your collective opinions and deductions you've made based on evidence, experience, education, training and knowledge). If you can reframe it to match your world view then cognitive dissonance is resolved.
Yes. Such as your conclusion that world view is the only relevant factor in assessing the probability of any directly unevidenced claim.
Cognitive dissonance, with respect to your unbending assertion that world view is the only factor in such considerations, appears to be the only explanation for your mathematically inaccurate conclusion that the number of planets in the universe has no effect on the probability of life existing on other planets.
Remember, these are all seasoned members of this forum, people who have had to deal with the cognitive dissonance of other posters (YEC for instance, John 10:10 as an example).
Yes. Which is why there really is no excuse in your case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 10:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 66 of 304 (500070)
02-22-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
02-22-2009 11:53 AM


RAZD Vs The Scientific Method
Accepting any concept for which you have no evidence either way is accepting it on subjective grounds. That is not disputed. And again, it does not matter how much we know or how much we think we know, what matters is that at this current point in time we don't know, so the acceptance is subjective rather than deductive.
You whole world view flies in the face of the scientific method.
On what basis do we search for dark matter, the Higgs Boson or the existence of extraterrestrial life?
Are these simply the products of world view plucked from our subjective arses?
Or are these the highly possible but directly unevidenced products of the logical extrapoloation of the objective evidence that we do have?
The whole scientific basis of discovery and verification relies on this concept. The formation of testable hypotheses would be impossible without such considerations.
By denying that these considerations exist or are relevant you are dismissing a large and fundamental part of the scientific method. You are doing exactly the same sort of thing that the creationists are so evidently guilty of.
Namely denying evidence.
We have objective evidence that suggests that life on other planets is highly possible.
We have objective evidence that humans are capable of inventing demonstrably false concepts for the purposes of argument.
To claim that we have no evidence relevant to the respective qustions of life on other planets or the actual existence of the IPU is just false.
It denies the evidence that we do have.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 11:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 70 of 304 (500083)
02-22-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
02-22-2009 4:13 PM


Re: General Reply
To answer Straggler's persistent tangential question - the believability is related to how much we think we know about the question, when we think we know a lot, we have a high confidence in our conclusion, and when we think we know little we have a low confidence in our conclusion, no matter what that conclusion is. This is part of the world view, not independent of it. Different people have different world views (their collective opinions and deductions they've made based on evidence, experience, education, training and knowledge) and will come to different (and necessarily) subjective conclusions. Once you have moved away from the area of scientific knowledge where concepts can be tested against reality, all you have are subjective conclusions.
Bollocks. Evidence, not world view, is the reason that the claims under discussion are not considered equally plausible.
There is no such thing as a complete absence of all evidence. You have yet again done absolutely nothing to refute this other than assert that it is not so.
1) Does the number of planets in the universe have any effect on the objectively derived probability that life has arisen on other planets?
2) If scientific hypotheses are not based on the logical extrapolation of the objective evidence available then on what basis are they derived according to you? World view?
3) If it can be demonstrated that humans are capable of (and even prone to) wilfully inventing demonstrably false concepts how can you claim that this has no relevance when considering the veracity of inherently unfalsifiable claims (e.g. the actual existence of the IPU) made by the same means under the same circumstances?
Your complete failure to directly answer any of my posts making these same points in two threads now can only be attributed to being off topic, irrelevant or tangential for so long.
The fact is that you are wrong. It is also a fact that you are showing sure signs of the 'cognitive dissonance' that you are all too eager to point out in others.
If you really think that the number of planets in the universe has no bearing at all on the likelihood of life existing on other planets then you are truly lost to reason.
Go figure.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 4:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 11:03 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 71 of 304 (500084)
02-22-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by iano
02-22-2009 5:30 PM


Absolute Vs Relative Probability
In other words Straggler, the SETI project / excitement over the possibility of water on Mars / etc.. presume life arose naturalistically on Earth. That presumption, the product of a world view - isn't science - it's the religion called Scientism.
It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely I, or you, might think abiogenesis to be.
If we accept that abiogenesis is physically possible then no matter how absolutely unlikely it may be the more planets there are in the universe the greater the probability of it actually occurring. This is mathematically indisputable.
RAZD's strict logical argument + irrational "world view" assertion is incapable of taking this relative probability into account.
Thus it is deeply and inherently flawed. He continues to evade and deny this flaw but it remains apparent for all to see.
Only if you assume that we are God's unique special creation and that abiogenesis is physically impossible anywhere else in the universe does your argument come into play.
And I see no reason to believe that is true, and I doubt RAZD does either.
Enjoy
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 02-22-2009 5:30 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 02-22-2009 6:45 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 9:44 PM Straggler has not replied

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


(1)
Message 75 of 304 (500089)
02-22-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous
02-22-2009 7:01 PM


Re: Fideism vs evidentialism
Now - wouldn't it be interesting to have some kind of thread where we can have philosophical duke out between Fideism and Evidentialism, so that all these kinds of issues can be laid bear and be indisputably on topic?
That sounds like a good topic.
The fideist therefore "urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious," and therefore may go on to disparage the claims of reason
Well this seems to be axactly what RAZD is doing by ignoring indirect but relevant objective evidence which can be used to assess the relative probability of a claim which is itself lacking in any direct evidence.
The only cause of contention appears to be that he is unaware that this is what he is doing and he is thus in denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 02-22-2009 7:01 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 9:27 PM Straggler has not replied

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


(1)
Message 81 of 304 (500108)
02-23-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by RAZD
02-22-2009 11:03 PM


RAZD Vs The Scientific Method (Part 2)
Straggler writes:
If you really think that the number of planets in the universe has no bearing at all on the likelihood of life existing on other planets then you are truly lost to reason.
Seeing as that is not my position it is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant because it goes to the very heart of what you are calling an "Absence of evidence".
Thankyou for finally (sort of half heartedly) admitting that not all unevidenced claims are equally probable.
Of course now that they you have finally acknowledged (sort of half heartedly) that all unevidenced claims are not equally probable your "All world views are equal" hypothesis comes tumbling down.
The plain fact, is that many people reach many different conclusions regarding the feasibility of alien life on other planets, and this is evidence of belief without sufficient convincing objective evidence, so people are making subjective conclusions.
Now, does the IPU argument apply to such beliefs in the existence of alien life?
Or does the fact that many people consider belief in the existence of alien life, and that they consider it rational, demonstrate that the IPU argument is a false straw man?
No. It is not a straw man. Your "world view" hypothesis only applies if all world views are equal. Your "world view" hypothesis only applies if you reject the scientific method.
My whole argument in two threads now has been based on establishing the relative likelihood of directly unevidenced claims.
Extraterrestrials, the Hggs Boson, dark matter are all directly unevidenced. As is the IPU. And as are any other supernatural undetectable deities. In that sense they all share a common factor. This much of your argument is true. The rest however is not.
SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES
The whole scientific method, deriving hypotheses from the logical extrapolation of known and tested facts and then testing these hypotheses relies on the fact that not all unevidenced claims are equally likely to be true.
General relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, the existence of the CMB - These were all directly unevidenced claims at one point in time. The fact that they have been since tested and verified as being true is not because the world view from which they were derived just happens to result in some lucky guesses.
The world view that resulted in these discoveries is the reasoned, systematic approach to knowledge that we call science. A reasoned, rational, systematic progression of knowledge that builds on objectively tested evidence to discover new evidence by means of establishing new hypotheses regarding as yet directly unevidenced phenomenon which logic suggests are highly likely. In short a method of prediction and verification.
This same reasoned, rational and scientific methodology is what is being used to make the claims that dark matter, the Higgs boson and extraterrestrial life are probable. These are scientific hypotheses the likelihood of which we can estimate based on the strength of the knowledge from which they were derived.
Dark matter, the Higgs boson and extraterrestrial life possibly may not exist. Like any hypothesis they could be wrong. But the fact that they are considered likely is not just the result of A world view. Their potential existence and the likelihood of that actual existence is derived from THE world view (if you insist on calling it that) that we call 'science'.
If you reject this "world view" as being no more or less reliable than any other world view then you reject the scientific method as the best means available for discovery and verification. That's fine. As long as you realise that this is what you are doing.
THE IPU AND OTHER ENTITIES
The IPU, God, gods and deities are not tentative conclusions derived from rational reason and the systematic analysis of tested knowledge. They are not scientific conclusions or even hypotheses.
They are all baseless assertions derived from faith or the desire to demonstrate the inherent irrationality of faith.
CONCLUSION
Not all unevidenced claims are equally probable. Some have the weight of the scientific method behind them and some do not.
The IPU and the various deities/gods under consideration do not.
Extraterrestrials, the Higgs boson and dark matter do.
That is why lumping them all together as the product of equally valid world views is effectively the rejection of the scientific method.
That is why placing the IPU in the same category as gods and deities whilst separating phenomenon deemed scientifically probable as superior is NOT a strawman argument.
Enjoy
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2009 11:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 90 of 304 (500137)
02-23-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
02-23-2009 7:57 AM


Re: Who's on first?
Do you or do you not think that the number of planets in the universe has an effect on the probability of life existing somewhere else in the universe?
It should be obvious that I've answered this several times.
No you have not. Where have you answered this question?
You keep avoiding explicitly answering this question.
If you agree that the probability of life on other planets increases as the number of planets increases then you also necessarily agree that we can make a logical and objective assessment regarding the relative likelihood of life existing on other planets based on this objective information. Despite having no direct evidence.
An objective assessment of likelihood is possible because no claim is made in a complete vacuuum of evidence. This is what I have been saying and you have been denying for two threads now.
The perception of the number of planets is part of the information you process when deciding on the likelihood of life on another planet, as is your knowledge and the evidence of life on earth.
Some methods of determining the number of planets in the universe are inherently more reliable than others. Those conclusions regarding the number of planets in the universe that are based on the scientific method are the most reliable and tested conclusions that we have available. They are superior to other methods from which a "perception of the number of planets" might be derived.
However, in spite of considering that the number of possible planets may well be unknown and unknowable, even approaching infinity, we have a range of people with different responses to the question from highly unlikely to almost a foregone conclusion, so the conclusion is that the resulting opinion is more a function of individual world views, not on the concrete objective reality of planets.
There will always be different conclusions whether there is evidence or not. That is just human nature. It has little to do with evidence. The existence of YECs is testament to that fact.
The only question relevant here is to ask which conclusions are the most objective, the most reliable and the most grounded in empirical evidence? The answer is those derived by means of the scientific method.
Thus the worldview trumps the issue of how many planets exist in forming an opinion.
Only if you treat all "world views" as equally valid and reliable. Are scientific conclusions and hypotheses superior to those that are not derived from objective evidence?
Dark matter, the Higgs boson and the existence of extraterrestrial life are scientific hypotheses derived from our objective and tested scientific knowledge. Their relative likelihood can be assessed based on the degree of certainty we have in the evidence from which these hypotheses are founded.
God, gods, the IPU, deities, Wagwah, etc. are baseless assertions derived from faith or the desire to demonstrate the inherent irrationality of faith.
That is why the two sets are not equivalent.
A is the class of things where we don't have evidence pro or con.
No evidence for
No evidence against
There are many examples of A, including the concept of alien life in the universe.
A = The set that includes all directly unevidenced phenomenon
B = The set that includes those phenomenon which are unverified scientific predictions but which nevertheless have a basis for probability derived from tested empirical evidence.
C = The set that includes those phenomenon with no basis in objective evidence whatsoever.
B and C are both subsets of A but the contents of B and C are indisputably and inherently different.
Extraterrestrial life, Higgs Boson, Dark Matter - These are all currently members of set B.
God, gods, deities, Wagwah, face sucking jellyfish, the IPU etc. etc. - These are all indisputably members of set C.
That is the difference
That is why the IPU etc. are valid comparisons to equally unevidenced claims for gods and deities whilst they are not valid comparisons to logically deduced and evidentially supported scientific possibilities.
That is why, unless you are disputing the validity of the scientific method, your arguments are flawed.
That is why your denial of our ability to objectively assess the relative likelihood of unevidenced claims is so wrong.
Exactly as I have been saying for two threads..........
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2009 7:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2009 11:46 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