Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Just as much as alien visitations?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

RAZD answer me ONE question - Are evidence based hypotheses more, less or equally as reliable as wholly subjective claims? From Message 242But try reading the full post rather than just picking apart this quote before coming back to me.

Nearly half way through, and people are still missing the basic point:The issue is that the question of alien life is NOT equivalent to the IPU argument, and that any argument claiming they are comparable involves a logical fallacy or two.Hint: the title is Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument LOL, I thought you said my presentation of the IPU argument was a straw man.Perhaps it is time to repeat the opening argument:

quote:

---

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 immaterial pink unicorns.
   ​
   ∴ therefore, you should believe in immaterial 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 immaterial pink unicorns, in fact it seems quite possible - even if it may never be possible to prove that alien life exists.
...
So there is a spectrum of concepts that are not based on known objective evidence, and they run from silly to likely to serious, and the reason there is this spectrum of different results when they all should be as silly as the immaterial pink unicorn, if the argument was valid, is because the argument is flawed.

---

We have now added the concept of alien visitations to earth to the list of things that have no (convincing, direct) evidence pro or con, and we see people equivocating on the answer to alien life:

Logical extrapolation applies to the question of alien life existing elsewhere in the universe.

​

Logical extrapolation does not apply to the question of alien visitations to earth.

​

The term "special pleading" comes to mind.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Don't give us the "love argument".Love does not exist distinctly or seperately to those who experience it.Love did not exist before conscious beings existed in the universe and it won't exist should the universe become devoid of conscious beings at some point in the future.Love, toe stubbing experiences etc. etc. etc. are not entities that exist independently of conscious beings so unless you agree that deities (and I include the IPU in that term) are just the product of human consciousness with no validity or existence outside of that consciousness they have nothing to do with anything that we are talking about.Nothing. Nada. Squat.

Both are based on the same direct evidence: our experience of life on earth, the known numbers of planets, etc.. The only difference is the degree of extrapolation, not in the kind of extrapolation:If there is life on earth, then there is a probability of alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.If there is intelligent life on earth, then there is a probability of intelligent alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.If there is space traveling life on earth, then there is a probability of space traveling alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.Further, if there is intelligent alien life, then it is probable that some alien life is more intelligent than humans (and some that is less intelligent than humans) ... and if more intelligent alien life is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.If there is space traveling life on earth, then there is a probability of space traveling alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.Further, if there is space traveling alien life, then it is probable that some space traveling alien life is more technological advanced than humans (and some that is less technological advanced than humans) ... and if more technological advanced space traveling alien life is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.Does, or does not, the increase in the number of planets increase the likelihood of alien visitations?Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your argument has been that a logical extrapolation, originally based on direct evidence, is fundamentally different from the IPU, no matter how tenuous the extrapolation from that evidence becomes. Thus, by your argument, the concept of the existence of alien life, and the concept of alien visitations to earth are on the same side of the tenuous extrapolation from our experience with life on earth, while the IPU concept is on the another side.Would you, or would you not, agree that one can make some scientific type predictions about alien visitations, that such visitations could result in occasional sightings of aliens and alien spacecraft?Do you, or do you not, agree that there are records - no matter how anecdotal and prone to error, etc. - of people claiming actual experience of occasional sightings of aliens and alien spacecraft?Do you, or do you not, agree that such claims could also be "indirect evidence" of alien visitations?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Yes, I think all parties agree that the IPU and alien life are not equivalent. So continuing to use alien life as an example of a failed application of the IPU seems a bit...daft, yes? It's not really an issue at all, if we all agree on it. But you seem to think that bringing the alien life issue up is relevant to the argument somehow. That's right I did. You see what you did was take an argument that nobody was making, and attempt to show that it didn't work. We agreed that it didn't work, and we gave reasons as to why the IPU and the existence of alien life are different. You seem to enjoy repeating your position at me.Just answer this: Can you give me a reason to prefer believing in the IPU over the Garage Dragon? Edited by Modulous, : clarifying my opening paragraph

You are (perhaps intentionally) confusing and conflating the evidential basis for UFOs having actually visted Earth with the possibility that they could visit Earth.The first is completely unevidenced in any objective terms I am aware of.The second is a potentially valid scientific hypothesis that involves factors about which I claim nothing but ignorance. The physics of inter-galactic space travel etc. etc. etc.If you want to start a thread on the second then I will happily participate.The former is more than adequately covered by my response here - Message 242Having had this conflation pointed out to you I trust that you will desist from any further confusion between the two?Edited by Straggler, : Wrong linkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What logical fallacy?Be specific.

This would be similar to Inattentional blindness

quote:

---

Inattentional blindness, also known as perceptual blindness, is the phenomenon of not being able to see things that are actually there. This can be a result of having no internal frame of reference to perceive the unseen objects, or it can be the result of the mental focus or attention which cause mental distractions. The phenomenon is due to how our minds see and process information.

---

So the lights don't have to be off for you to objectively not realize that you are about to stub your toe. Yet you will stub it and still not have objective evidence as to what you stubbed it on, even with the lights on, due to the fact that our minds can sometimes see and process information in unusual ways that defy our logic, in hindsight. I think love is an illusionary feature added to biological reproduction. But that will be too off topic.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Straggler, I think the point RAZD was trying to make to me in that post was that there are experiences that lack objective evidence that we can point to definitively, yet are still experienced in the physical reality.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

And I agree.But what has that to do with the supposed actual existence of gods, deities, Immaterial Pink Unicorn, Wagwah, Face Sucking Jellyfish or any other such inherently undetectable entity?

Not a damn thing. This sub-topic spun off of one of my replies to Rrhain.Sorry for the off topic deviation.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

If it was you and only you I would advocate flogging and hanging.Given that I am also guilty of such discrepancies I will advocate forgiveness and compassion instead.Let he who hath not deviated off topic cast the first (metaphorical) stone.May all your contributions be wise ones.

Thanks Mod, Seeing as I've never seen any reason to actually believe in the IPU, it is irrelevant how many other made up entities you raise in the same vein. Do you agree that they are both things for with there is no conclusive evidence pro or con?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

When you dream you make a distinction, "thats just dream stuff", but what is the actual difference?

---

Persistence, consistency, etc. Are we about to wander off into solipsism?

quote:

---

So, yes...I would say dreams are as real as what we experience in the physical world just in a different space.

---

I guess we are, then. Question: Is there anybody else in your world or is it just you? I don't mean that flippantly. I really want to know. Is your philosophical underpinning that only your consciousness can be said to exist and all the others that you experience are in doubt?If we go with the idea that there are other people in the world, that it isn't just you, that there is an external reality that is independent of you, even though you only experience it through your senses, then we can make a distinction between those sensations that seem to happen only to you and those that are more communally acquired.

quote:

---

It seems like RAZD and Percy are doing just that.

---

And thus, we get back to the IPU. Nobody seems to take the IPU seriously. Why the special pleading for theirs?

quote:

---

The main point to the OP is that the IPU's are not logical arguments, which, if we can dream it, then it's subjective, as subjective as claims for diesm, and as such ARE logical arguments.

---

Huh? Subjective claims aren't evidence of anything. We've gone full circle. Shall we spin the merry go round again?

quote:

---

but are those two spaces really that separate or are they the same thing?

---

Solipsism? That's your argument?

---

Rrhain

---

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