|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Taz
I'll change the topic title.
With something invisible like that, we can still measure it's volume and other properties ... ... like mass ...
...by simple experiments like filling the room up with water. Or the rotation of galaxies? Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thank you Otto Tellick,
As I understand it, the main motivation for the IPU/FSM argument is not simply that these are examples of belief in things for which "there is no evidence" -- rather, they are meant to represent examples of belief in things for which there can never be evidence, ... Curiously, it seems the only argument people are making is to redefine A (your "C") to being absurd or unbelievable or contradictory first. Thus they have already made up their mind that B is absurd or unbelievable or contradictory and don't need to use the comparison with other concepts. These pre-judgments are subjective conclusions, and based on your world view rather than on evidence or logic. In other words the argument goes like this: Person 1: A is an example of B (A=B) (where B is the class of things we don't know) Person 2: No, A is an example of C (A=C), just like D is an example of C (where C is the class of things that are absurd or unbelievable or contradictory) Person 1: No A is an example of B (A=B), we don't have enough information to conclude that it is or is not C (A?=?C), as B is the class of things we do not know, because there is no evidence pro or con for them. Person 2: But D is an example of C and you have not shown that B is not like D (B=D) ... and around we go again. Where = means "is like" versus == which means "is the same as" identity) Note: I've edited previous posts to add a ps for clarity on this meaning. I've also change IPU to immaterial pink unicorn) for Taz.
-- rather, they are meant to represent examples of belief in things for which there can never be evidence, in the sense of objective, replicable and/or independently confirmable observation that would go one way if an assertion were true versus some other way if the assertion were false. But I don't think you can make that deduction either. Logically all you can deduct is that currently we don't know. 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 A consists of: (1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and(2) that also have no contradictory evidence Where "evidence" can be qualified to mean "sufficient or convincing evidence" which then means that the acceptance of evidence is itself subjective and based on your world view rather than deductive, because what is "sufficient and convincing" to one person can be "insufficient and unconvincing" to another, resulting in curious debates involving pens on desks and the like.
That is, we're talking about assertions that can only be accepted on subjective grounds. 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. Likewise concluding that an idea is absurd or unbelievable or contradictory without evidence of this is also a subjective conclusion based on your world view, rather than a deductive one based on evidence.
That is, I don't see how your A (IPU) and B (alien life) are examples of the same C; I'm fairly certain they are not. In the original post "C" is defined a "something without evidence" so this consists of: (1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and(2) that also have no contradictory evidence I think what I consider unsatisfying about the IPU argument is not that it leads to a logical fallacy, but simply that by invoking something ridiculous and comical, it verges on being overtly insulting. So rather than the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, it is the logical fallacy of ridicule (ad lapidem)?
I suppose I can "consider the possibility" of an IPU Curiously, this is another reason I dismiss the IPU concept. When one employs the Reductio ad absurdum argument one should make sure that what you start with is actually comparable. When we look at "something without evidence" as meaning: (1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and(2) that also have no contradictory evidence Then we can eliminate IPU as a self-contradictory concept, while that has not been shown for a belief that meets (1) and (2).
That is, I don't see how your A (IPU) and B (alien life) are examples of the same C; I'm fairly certain they are not. So if we eliminate IPU from the class of "something without evidence" due to intrinsic contradiction, you are correct, they are not comparable. Enjoy 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thank you shalamabobbi,
On a slightly more serious note, the problem with the IPU argument is that it is a thinly veiled ad hominum attack. Aside from the purpose of illustrating a lack of evidence it is a form of ridicule of the opponent. So Otto Tellick and I are not alone in seeing this. Thus, in addition to the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, it is the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack and ridicule (ad lapidem)? Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Rahvin, I'll answer some other people too, to save multiple posts saying the same thing.
In other words, saying "You're an idiot, therefore you are wrong" is an ad hominem. Saying "You're wrong, for x, y and z reasons, you idiot," is not an ad hominem. The implication of the typical IPU argument is that you are an idiot, because you can't see that C is just like B, not that you are wrong. So far we've gone fromB is an example of A C is an example of A ∴ B = C Which is accepted as a logically flawed argument toB is an example of A C is an example of A C is wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc. ∴ A is the class of things that are wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc. and ∴ B is wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc. This is evident in people redefining A to be something other than the class of things that consists of "concepts without evidence," which is refined to be: (1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and(2) that also have no contradictory evidence Now maybe I am uneducated in the matter, but it seems to me that this includes a LOT of concepts that don't involve deities in any way, and that range across a spectrum of believability. Again, the logical position is that "we don't know" and yet we see all kinds of people believing in several of these concepts. Thus it seems to me that we should be able to discuss this without involving religion/s. We've seen a range of responses on the issue of alien life in the universe, from Mark to Ned to Straggler, and what it comes down to is how well the concepts fit into the jigsaw puzzle that is your personal world view (your collective opinions and deductions you've made based on evidence, experience, education, training and knowledge). Is it a virus infecting a cell (to be battled) or is it nourishing sustenance for part of the cell (to be welcomed), or is it a sperm fertilizing an egg (causing a growth of the cell into a new form)? 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.
Making the IPU argument does not include the assertion that belief in dieties is wrong because theists are stupid. Actually the implication is that belief in anything where we have no evidence one way or the other (A), is silly at best, clinically delusional at worst. This, of course, also applies to any conclusion other than "we don't know" so if this is a reductio ad absurdum argument, it applies equally to belief (+) as well as any belief (-) for any item in the class A, where A consists of: (1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and(2) that also have no contradictory evidence So if you reach a conclusion on the issue of alien life in the universe, pro or con, you are "guilty as charged" of the IPU belief to the same degree that deists\theists are guilty, or do we hear special pleading here?
In the case of the IPU, it frequently makes theists extremely angry, but also makes a valid point. As does, or so it appears, pointing out the logical fallacies of people making these arguments make them angry. The evidence is the people wanting to turn this into deism/theism bashing instead of discussing whether or not we have a logical fallacy here at the start. So we started withB is an example of A C is an example of A ∴ B = C Where A is the class of things\concepts which are defined by: (1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and(2) that also have no contradictory evidence If the IPU argument is self-contradictory then it would not be a class A concept and should be discarded when discussing class A concepts.
It's an attempt at applying theistic reasoning to a made-up and purposefully ridiculous entity to show that the theist's reasoning, when applied universally, is absurd. Its intent is to point out the special pleading of the theist, where some unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims are okay, and all others are not. Which also includes the issue of alien life in the universe. It's an attempt at applying a straw man of theistic reasoning. Faith is based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational. Faith is non-reasonable\rational: it is belief without evidence. Faith does not make conclusions based on evidence, it makes conclusions about evidence based on faith. This same kind of faith applies to many concepts for which we have no evidence, such as the existence of alien life in the universe. If you have (+) faith, you will conclude (as many have) that the existence of life is between possible and highly probable. If you have (-) faith, you will conclude (as some have) that the existence of life is between impossible and highly improbable. The fact that nobody seems to be able to deal with the topic issue without drawing deism\theism into it, means they are not really considering the class of concepts involved, or think that it is limited to only deism\theism. The class of concepts is "things we don't have evidence for" and this consists of: (1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and(2) that also have no contradictory evidence Which also includes the issue of alien life in the universe.
You simply don't like it because it paints all theism as unreasonable and ridiculous. Which is false because faith is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational. It is belief without evidence. Again the logical answer is "we don't know" and some people go with "there are (maybe) no gods" and some people go with "there are (maybe) gods" and BOTH of these positions are based on something other than evidence while neither is reasonable\rational. You may think that it is unreasonable and ridiculous, but that is your opinion, based on a lack of evidence pro or con. How do you reconcile that you are asking me to agree to your opinion (based on a lack of evidence pro or con) while criticizing me for believing something (based on a lack of evidence pro or con)?
Even the hasty generalization fallacy does not apply; a hasty generalization is an argument from limited or inadequate information. This is not similar to the IPU argument, where one unevidenced and unfalsifiable entity is compared to another. And yet you just generalized them as being the same class or silly and ridiculous beliefs, with emphasis on a silly and ridiculous over-extended self-contradictory straw man, while not considering all the other concepts that belong to the class of concepts for which there is no evidence, pro or con, and the class of concepts that are "things we don't have evidence for" consists of: (1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and(2) that also have no contradictory evidence Which also includes the issue of alien life in the universe. Thus the issue of the validity of the IPU argument comes down to whether or not it can be logically applied in a logically consistent manner to the issue of alien life in the universe. I say it can't, and that the reason it can't is that it doesn't represent all members of the class "things we don't have evidence for" and that any attempt to use it guilty of making the logically flawed argument that B is an example of AC is an example of A ∴ B is like C ∴ Belief in alien life in the universe is like belief in the IPU/s Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : ending Edited by RAZD, : missing ∴ added 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Have at it. In the mean time please stop with the snide attacks that do not add anything to the contents of this thread.
Enjoy. ps {abe} For the record, I would not be arguing the Fideism position, as that is not my position {/abe} Edited by RAZD, : ps 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD's strict logical argument + irrational "world view" assertion is incapable of taking this relative probability into account. Worldview - Wikipedia
quote: Bold added for emPHAsis (although I could have bolded the whole quote). You will note that all of this is consistent with what I have argued. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet to Horatio in Act I, Scene V when Horatio complains about the ghost. It is what you have, whether you think so or not. Enjoy. ps{abe}
Your worldview includes scientific knowledge, it is not something made up or added on arbitrarily to dodge an argument, it is part of your reality.{/abe} Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : ps 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... you are essentially conceding the entire point of the IPU argument right here. So claim victory and leave then. Meanwhile I will continue to argue that the IPU is one of many, but not a necessarily representative, example of things where we don't have evidence pro or con, and that the discussion on alien life has shown that there is a spectrum of beliefs in regards to things we don't have (conclusive, convincing, etc) evidence pro or con, and that in fact the IPU falls into a subcategory of self contradictory concepts and doesn't really compare to other concepts. And for the record, you talk about having sufficient convincing evidence to believe or not believe something. What you consider sufficient or convincing is subjective, so other people will make different subjective conclusions about what is sufficient and convincing arguments. If what I subjectively consider to be sufficient and convincing arguments differs from what you subjectively consider to be sufficient and convincing arguments, then your position is also special pleading, as the only difference is the conclusion.
And that's fine - I don't care, special plead away, ... And neither does this refute the position that using the IPU involves a logical fallacy or two, as has been demonstrated by the variety of responses concerning alien life - responses that all -- according to you -- amount to special pleading because they involve the same class of concepts as the IPU.
Fideism and Evidentialism, Seeing as I am not proposing fideism, have at it. Go start a thread for theism bashing, it appears that many posters would prefer that to dealing with the topic. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Bollocks. Evidence, not world view, is the reason that the claims under discussion are not considered equally plausible. But what you are saying is that 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. You think you have a lot of evidence in one case, and that you don't have a lot of evidence in another.
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. Perhaps if you read what I write, rather than what you think I write you wouldn't get all angry about it.
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. Except that I have not said that. What you are engaged in is making extrapolations from existing evidence to reach conclusions that you think are logical. The fact remains that this is a subjective conclusion and not based on actual evidence of actual alien life on actual other planets. The fact is that Mark24 uses the same evidence and makes an equally logical extrapolation from the existing evidence and reaches an entirely different conclusion. The reason is because of different perceptions of what is a logical extrapolation from the known evidence, and that different perception is not based on facts or scientific theory, it is based on assumptions found in your world view:
quote: 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. If you don't understand that there is an interaction between what you perceive as evidence and your world view, then you have something to learn. 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? Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Rrhain.
And by the way, I wasn't the one that came up with the term "absurd" or did any sort of "redefinition." That term is yours, RAZD. You used it in your opening post, immaterial is a better description than invisible (Message 1): If you didn't mean to call the IPU (BBHH) "absurd," then why did you do so right off the bat? But the IPU is C, not A, the fact that it is absurd is due to it being a self-contradictory, designed argument, designed to ridicule beliefs. You were the first to refer to A as being absurd.
Incorrect. The point behind examples such as the IPU is to demonstrate that all A are absurd. Thus you are arguing that A is absurd because C is absurd.
You don't get to have it both ways. Then don't redefine A.
Message 85RAZD writes:
quote: Incorrect. Instead:B is constructed to be equivalent to A. B is considered "absurd." Because B necessarily copies A, then A is also "absurd." With no example of A that is not equivalent to B, all A are thus "absurd." But claiming that A is necessarily "absurd" from the start is begging the question. A is the class of things where we don't have evidence pro or con. No evidence forNo evidence against There are many examples of A, including the concept of alien life in the universe. Some people have added "unfalsifiable" to the concept category in an attempt to make the IPU more representative of the class (again redefining A to suit your argument) The argument that alien life is different because it may be possible to determine that it is valid, while remaining unfalsifiable until then, is just special pleading on what you consider possible future evidence. This is the subtext to what you consider evidence, and the subtext to what you consider possible support for a claim that is a member of class A.
Message 86OK, you do realize that there is a problem with this picture, yes? One's education and experiences, philosophies and deductions, beliefs and opinions, are not necessarily part of reality. Even our "valid theories" might be without foundation. That's the entire point behind scientific inquiry: Everything we think we know about everything just might be wrong. So your education and experiences, philosophies and deductions, beliefs and opinions, are not part of reality the reality that is Rrhain?
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. 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. 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. Thus the worldview trumps the issue of how many planets exist in forming an opinion. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Straggler,
I begin to wonder if you understand my argument at all.
No you have not. Where have you answered this question? You keep avoiding explicitly answering this question. I feel that the answers I have given several times deals with this issue.
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. Does the increase in the number of planets alone increase this likelyhood? Obviously not, because Mark24 argues against the likelihood of life on other planets, and he is looking at the same number of planets as you are. So far all the increase in knowledge about planets has been to increase the number of planets without life. How does that change your equation?
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. Correct, but what one person regards as supportive evidence when another person regards the same evidence as negative or inconclusive is not objective evidence.
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. The Drake Equation gives significantly different results depending on your initial assumptions, and all those assumptions involve things we don't know, which are then multiplied together.
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? Frankly I consider your worldview and Mark24's, Ned's, Mod's, Rrhain's, etc., worldviews of equal value, which is why I can state with a high degree of confidence that worldview trumps the evidence when there are different conclusions reached from the same evidence. And no, all worldviews do not need to be of equal value, for a worldview that is massively at odds with the evidence of reality is of quite a different value in being able to deal with reality than one that has no known issues with reality. However when two worldviews disagree on concepts where there is no evidence pro or con, AND where neither of those worldviews is in conflict with any known issues regarding reality, THEN if feel that this shows the conclusions to be subjective and not deductive.
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. And on how much we think we know the truth.
God, gods, the IPU, deities, Wagwah, etc. are baseless assertions derived from faith or the desire to demonstrate the inherent irrationality of faith. According to your world view, which also claims:
An objective assessment of likelihood is possible because no claim is made in a complete vacuuum of evidence. You can't have it both ways or you are guilty of special pleading. So far, what I have seen is that
And what they prove is that (1) they all belong to the class of intentionally ridiculous concepts, (2) comparison of them to concepts that are of the class of things that we don't have evidence for pro or con can only be an attempt to ridicule the concept. Then you have (your claim - correct me if I'm wrong)
That's all I have time for tonight. I've got a week of ten hour days to look forward to as well, so my ability to go into detail is limited. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't have time to deal with the side issue people keep raising, especially the ones that avoid the issue or try to redefine it.
To restate the topic one more time:
The argument usually goes something like this:
As a counter example we can propose alien life in the universe:
Curiously, this does not seem as absurd as the belief in immaterial pink unicorns, in fact it seems quite possible - even if it may never be possible to prove that alien life exists. I would like to deal with three and only three points: (1) the class of things being discussed is those where we have no (convincing\conclusive) evidence FOR a concept and where we have no (convincing\conclusive) evidence CONTRADICTING the concept. (2) the use of the "immaterial pink unicorn" argument as a "typical" member of this group. (3) the question of whether alien life exists in the universe belongs in this group or not. I would appreciate those several individuals that have posted on this thread would look back at your posts and see if you have really treated this topic fairly. I would also appreciate, that if you cannot keep to just these three issues within the topic, that you hold off until this issue is resolved. I'm sorry, but I just do not have my usual time to devote to answering every side issue, misunderstanding and redefinition.
This thread is ONLY for discussing this logically false argument and NOT whether atheism or deism or last-thursdayism is a logically valid position. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
Let's see if we can settle the alien life issue before adding other arguments that are not on topic.
The absolute probability is irrelevant. It is a mathematical fact that the greater the number of planets the greater the relative likelihod of life on other planets is. If Mark24 denies this he is just mathematically wrong. As are you. The absolute probability is the argument. The fact of increased numbers being offset by the fact of uninhabitable planets being the vast majority is important to the final conclusion. And that's only two factors in the equation. I find it curious that you so quickly dismiss Mark24's argument as wrong without addressing the issue on non-habitability. I think he has a valid point, even though my personal position is that life is highly probable given the preponderance of pre-biotic molecules in space (and thus the result may be organic life similar to ours, rather than the silicon etc life of so many SF stories).
Thus we can conclude the principle that you must deny in order to maintain your flawed "world view" philosophy. Namely that the relative likelihood of a claim can be deduced from objective factors that have nothing to do with subjective world view. Curiously, my "flawed" world view philosophy is born out by scientific research in the field of psychology, particularly on how people make decisions. I think you really need to back down on this issue: once you are outside the field/s of scientific knowledge the scientific process no longer works. The fact remains that you and Mark24 reached contradictory conclusions, based on the same evidence, and the same basic scientific knowledge, and the same basic logic, and the difference is how you each perceive the relative importance of different evidence to the final answer.
False. Not all supporting evidence is logically equally relevant. If your claim were true the formation of highly defined scientific hypotheses would be absolutely impossible. Strangely, disagreement of the relative importance of different evidence leads to different conclusions, and this is where different scientific theories begin. So yes, I believe how you personally interpret information is very important to the conclusions you will reach and it is why they will be different from Mark24 or Modulus or me.
Your "Absence of evidence" assertion is false. No claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence. As I have been saying for two threads now. We will take your assertion that the existence of alien life in the universe is highly probable. Given this as a true basis for making more logical conclusions, I believe we can safely say that human life is not the most advanced life form. There are likely much older histories of life that also developed intelligence as a necessarily emergent property of evolution, and it would not take many million years to substantially exceed our poor capabilities and knowledge. With the earth being 4.55 billion years old, in a 13.7 billion year old universe, there is substantial opportunity for much older life forms, even if you start after the production of iron or uranium by second and third generation stars. We have also had several false starts on the path to an intelligent dominant life form capable of space travel, so some other planets may have taken a shorter time to the same result. Thus there should be some that have proceeded much further. This is, of course all supported by your objective evidence.
Your "Absence of evidence" assertion is false. No claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence. As I have been saying for two threads now. There are lots of claims of UFO's, and as you say, there are "no claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence," so there must be a logical basis for such claims. I cannot speak for them, as I have never had any personal experience with UFO's. Now, are these people seeing immaterial pink unicorns instead of aliens, or is your assertion that "No claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence" invalid? (as much as I would like to use it). Where do I draw the line? Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm duplicating my response from the other thread here to save me some work:
Which leads us to the question of if (a) there is a probability of life, then (b) are the claims of UFO peoples valid, as they are based on a level of objective evidence that you say makes alien life probable? If not, then where do you draw the line in the logic train? Where does the probability end? single cell lifemulticell life life with differentiated tasks life with organs life with skeletons life that can manipulate objects life that can manipulate it's local environment life that can make objects life that can make local environments life that can send objects into space life that can send life into space life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundaries These are all equally probable based on our sample of one out of all known planets. One can also ask how much a million years head start on technology would affect the equations - and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that alien life had such a head start, unless you want to plead that human life is special. Does this make UFO's reasonable to believe in?
There is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence. So there is evidence of UFO visits? Or is belief in UFO's similar to IPU's and why? Enjoy 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From our single sample of one solar system, we know that most bodies aren't in the fortunate position that Earth is, and plenty of them aren't even solid. The problem is, that our single sample has all these elements, and there is no comparison to other planets with life, only to planets without life, thus when we measure the probability of (x) occurring against the known evidence (1 out of all known planets) we end up with the same probability: 1 out of all known planets. It may be a little simplistic, but then the number of planets is still quite small. I thought of adding in a factor for when each event occurred in earth's history, however this assumes that the pattern on earth must be repeated to achieve the same end, and I don't think that is valid. For all we know, on once you have reached (a) then (b) to (z) is inevitable, and could take from a billion to 10 billion years depending on what steps, backsteps and such are taken. And it really doesn't alter the numbers: Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
quote: The article cited is from Two Hot New Planets Discovered, Written by Fraser Cain, September 27th, 2006. All these planets are not capable of life as we know it, according to the experts, whether they have existed for 1/4 of earths existence or 4x's earths existence. The number of planets where single celled life developed is 1 out of 200. The number of planets where intelligent organisms have evolved - organisms capable of sending things out of their solar system, and capable of sending living organisms inside piloted habitable microenvironments into space and recovering them - is also 1 out of 200. So yes, practically speaking, all these events are of equal probability according to the information we know.
Yes, there is evidence of alien piloted spacecraft visits. Its not very good evidence, especially given that most cases there is no evidence that the object is a craft that is capable of extra-atmospheric travel and in not a single case to date is there any evidence that they are piloted by non terrestrial beings. ... This makes it different than the IPU, unless you can tell me about the evidence and reasoning for and against the IPU's existence along similar lines as the above? Interesting. Just to be clear, you are claiming that this evidence, no matter how poor, likely to be erroneous, and possibly hallucination, separates the possibility of UFO's being evidence of actual alien life visitations - no matter how small that chance is - from the IPU construction. If we change "A" to the class of things actually believed by some people, but without (convincing) evidence, then the IPU argument doesn't meet the standard, while alien life passes? This also includes sasquatch, nessie, cryptozoology, etc. right? Of course, I don't see any reason to support the artificial IPU argument at all, as I don't think it can be compared to other cases of things where we have no (convincing) evidence pro or con. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The possibility of life on other planets is derived from the firm objective evidential foundation of knowing that life exists on this planet and knowing that other planets exist. The probability of of life on other planets can then be objectively evaluated in terms of what we know about the nature of life and the number of planets available to spawn such phenomenon. The probability is very much a secondary consideration and will depend on the information available.... single cell life
The evidence available suggests that any of these might possibly exist elsewhere in the universe.multicell life life with differentiated tasks life with organs life with skeletons life that can manipulate objects life that can manipulate it's local environment life that can make objects life that can make local environments life that can send objects into space life that can send life into space life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundaries But there is still no objective reason to think that any of them have ever made their way here in UFOs. Of course I am confident that you won't attempt to confuse or conflate the two issues...........? No, I won't confuse or conflate them, I'm just trying to add it up, and see where you draw the line between (1) alien life is probable, and (2) alien visitations "in UFOs" is highly unlikely. You say (loudly and positively) that no claim is made in a vacuum of evidence (except possibly the IPU claim, of course), so what is the difference between the evidence for the probable existence of alien life and the evidence for the likelihood of alien visits? Where do you draw the line?
There is no objective evidential reason for thinking that we have ever been visited by alien spacecraft. So you prefer to believe. It does make it easier to reach conclusions when you exclude the possibility of evidence contrary to your belief eh? Mod seems to say that there is evidence, just that it is poor and inconclusive.
There is much objective evidence to suggest that people make such things up. There is much solid and objective evidence that shows people will deny evidence contrary to their beliefs (the world view and cognitive dissonance thing again).
There is also objective evidence regarding the physics of space travel that, as I understand it, would suggest the sort of claims made by people with relation to UFOs are unlikely to be true. Start with a small organism pre-adapted for hibernation and with naturally slower metabolism than humans. Add a million years of technology over what we know. Consider an organism that has adapted to living in space ships permanently, that only needs occasional contact with systems that have readily available resources (asteroids). That's all I have time for tonight. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : the train 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024