RAZD writes:
Scales Of Bias
No RAZ. Scales of
Evidence + Logic + Bias. As I will demonstrate:
Let's summarise the three levels of evidence used in my previous example as follows:
Verfied Fact = Objective Evidence + Logical Interpretation + Verification
Hypothesis = Objective Evidence + Logical Interpretation
Wholly Unevidenced Claim = No Objective Evidence + Logic
Now I am not claiming that these levels are absolute. These are benchmarks on a graduated scale not absolute definitions. Please also note that no claim has been made to suggest that a hypothesis is any substitute for verified evidence. It absolutely is not. No-one, least of all me, is disputing that.
But let's examine each of the concepts under discussion in terms of this scale and see where we get to.
UNEVIDENCED CLAIMS - EXAMPLERAZD would seem to claim that:
IPU (and similar "absurd" entities) = No Objective Evidence + Bad Logic
RAZD is also claiming that:
Deity = No Objective Evidence + Good Logic
No matter how good or bad the logic applied is, the fact of the matter is that these two concepts are utterly equivalent in terms of a complete and absolute lack of evidential basis. That is not in dispute.
To those who consider objective evidence as the sole contributor to reliability of conclusion there is absolutely no difference between the IPU and a deity. It is this point that RAZD finds so offensive and it is this point that has inspired another debate thread that RAZD has "lost" to all practical intents and purposes.
HYPOTHESIS - EXAMPLEIn the "Immaterial Pink Unicorn" thread RAZD finally acknowledged that the possibility of alien life is unequivocally derived from objective empirical evidence. Thus we have:
Possibility of Alien Life = Objective Evidence + Logical Interpretation
Thus no matter how good or bad the logic applied is - A hypothesis is quite evidently superior
in purely evidential terms to the sort of wholly unevidenced claim described above. This is indisputable.
With regard to alien life the question then remains as to whether the conclusion drawn is based on an interpretation of evidence that is the product of "good" logic or "bad" logic.
THE GOOD, THE BAD and the BIASEDNow the obvious bone of contention in both these examples is our ability to differentiate between conclusions that are the result of "good logic" and conclusions that are the result of "bad logic".
It is here that the opportunity for bias and subjective world view to take precedence undeniably arises. What one perceives to be "good" or "bad" logic can all too easily be clouded by the desire for the conclusion to be true and other such factors. So can we hope to differentiate between the two?
If we cannot differentiate between good logic and bad logic then the first thing to point out is that deities and the IPU are utterly identical in terms of validity. In the absence of objective evidence the only differentiation between these two entities is the validity of the logic involved.
So for your sake RAZD, and the sake of your deity, let's hope that we are able to differentiate between good and bad logic!!!
It also must be understood that if we cannot differentiate between good and bad logic then there would be little reason to think that our scientific hypotheses are likely to be true. In a complete fog of illogicality there are far more conclusions that can be derived from evidence that will be false than there are that will be true. We would have no reason to think that our hypotheses are likely to be any more true than blind guesses. Even if the guesses take into account the known evidence.
So where does that leave us?
VERIFICATIONThe ultimate test of a hypothesis is verification of predicted results. This eliminates the mere subjective interpretation of evidence and provides objective verification that is beyond chance. Such verification must be the ultimate goal of any theory as only then can a theory be said to have been truly "scientifically verified".
BUT how many of our hypotheses do get verified? Not all most certainly. But a far far far greater number than would be possible if our hypotheses were borne from a stab in the dark made within a fog of illogicality. So we must conclude that humans are not wholly subjective, not wholly illogical and not wholly unable to form reliable hypotheses.
In fact in some cases we seem to have a great deal confidence in our hypotheses. Would we expend the resources we have on searching for the Higgs Boson unless we thought it at least a distinct possibility? How confident are we that dark matter exists in some form or another? Who would place money against an as yet directly evidenced transitional form being discovered in the next few years?
Why are we so confident in some unevidenced claims but not others? Is it just "world view" as RAZD suggests or is there a more objective, evidential and logical reason for considering some hypotheses as more likely to be true than others?
That is the key question that divides RAZD's position and mine.
CONFIDENCEI propose that the key criteria in establishing a degree of confidence in a scientific hypothesis are as follows:
1) The strength of the evidential foundation.
2) The degree to which subjective interpretation is required and/or possible.
This can be demonstrated by considering those hypotheses mentioned above which are considered to be highly plausible despite being directly unevidenced:
Higgs Boson: - Derived from the predictively verified standard model of particle physics and mathematical constructs which are largely immune to subjective interpretation (which raises an interesting if tangential link between mathematics and our ability to make highly accurate objective theories from such wholly mathematical and abstract constructs - Perhaps an interesting topic for another thread)
Dark Matter: - Derived from a cosmological model that is evidenced by specific measurable quantative predictions that are the envy of most other scientific theories plus the mathematical logic that there
should be more mass than is observed if our cosmological models are as true as the predictive evidence indicates.
Transitional Forms: - As yet undiscovered transitionals have the full weight of one of the most evidentially supported scientific theories ever devised. Namely the theory of evolution. Such is the weight of evidence that the logical expectation that new and predicted transitional fossils will be discovered barely justifies the term "unevidenced". Despite the fact that many specific transitional intermediate forms have yet to be directly evidenced and unequivocally found to have existed.
EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE - THE CASE IN FAVOURSo where does this leave the possibility of alien life? Well the evidential basis is absolutely undeniable. We
KNOW that life exists on this planet. We also
KNOW that there are other planets in the universe. Thus a minimal (if even present) degree of interpretation of evidence leads to the logically inevitable question of the possibility of life on other planets.
It is that simple. The question of life on other planets is derived from just about the most evidentially founded and logically inevitable possibility one could think of.
Whatever factors may influence the
probability of alien life existing the evidential and logical root of the
possibility of this directly unevidenced phenomenon are absolutely undeniable.
Thus our specified criteria have been met:
Criteria writes:
1) The strength of the evidential foundation.
2) The degree to which subjective interpretation is required and/or possible.
THE UFO QUESTIONRAZD keeps asking me about UFOs in a manner that suggests that he finds my conclusion regarding the unlikelihood of UFO visitations to be inconsistent and irrational as compared to my acceptance of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. So let's look at the evidence and logic required to conclude that visitations to Earth by alien spacecraft are probable in relation to the above argument.
Well firstly there is no objective verifiable empirical evidence that suggests alien spacecraft have visited the planet Earth that I am aware of. To my knowledge all the evidence in favour of alien visitations consists of subjective experience. Thus I would suggest that the evidential foundation is extremely weak.
But if there is empirical evidence of UFO visitations how much subjective interpretation is required to conclude alien visitation rather than the various other possibilities? I would suggest that the answer is a great deal.
Thus the question of UFOs fails by the specified criteria.
Criteria writes:
1) The strength of the evidential foundation.
2) The degree to which subjective interpretation is required and/or possible
For these reasons I maintain that belief in UFO visitations are essentially unevidenced and irrational whilst belief in the
possibility of extraterrestrial life elsewhere in the universe is wholly evidenced and rational.
CONCLUSIONMy position in relation to the wider issue regarding deism, atheism and objectively unevidenced entities remains as quoted below.
Straggler's Ultimate Position In This Thread writes:
Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.
Everything I have said above in relation to evidence, deism, the possibility of alien life elsewhere in the universe and UFOs is wholly consistent with this quoted position.
As you say.....
Enjoy!!
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Oh it's a long post and it needed lots of editing..... Enjoy!
™ Version 4.2
(1)