if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it.
Fair enough, but what method exists to investigate the claim that would help provide proof against the claim?
People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position.
But there is a method to do the research for or against evolution. What method of research do you suggest for investigating philosophical claims that would then yeild evidence for or againsts certain philosophical claims?
The point is that for you to have a valid negative hypothesis that it must be based on evidence, and if you don't have that evidence that your logical position is necessarily agnostic.
The same holds for any positive hypothesis, of course, however we are much more familiar with that burden.
Re: So we want evidence of absence? (or maybe philosophy will suffice?)
Hi Otto Tellick, thanks for setting aside your trepidation.
We have the very clear and concise synopsis of the current topic provided at Message 22 (thanks and kudos to petrophysics1), ...
Yes, the broad topic is that any negative hypothesis has as much burden of evidence as any positive hypothesis, that being a skeptic is more than just saying "I don't think so".
... and we have the sense (not mentioned in the OP, but now obvious) of the intended ("real") focus of the topic: whether there is (or can be) an evidentiary basis for atheism.
As a frequent example where the negative hypothesis is made without evidence and asserted as being the result of skepticism alone.
Bottom line: maybe I misunderstand RAZD, but if he's trying to say that a "positive atheism" is somehow less supportable than "agnostic atheism", my response would be that theism/deism, and any form of agnosticism (just allowing a possibility of a deity) is the far less supportable position, by virtue of the fact that it simply extends a quirk of linguistic structure into a logical contradiction.
Curiously, if position notA is "more supportable" (to you) than position A, then you should have some evidence of this difference. If you don't have evidence, then you are making a guess and just calling it logical skepticism. This is what Truzzi referred to as pseudoskepticism.
I see the virtually inevitable diversion to talk about deities rather than the topic.
I see that the IPU has reared her pretty little head again.
I see people are talking about my beliefs again.
All of this, sadly, is off topic.
quote:The issue of providing evidence for a positive assertion is well known, and what I would like to discuss is the issue of providing evidence for a negative assertion.
Taking these three statements:
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .
(The last quote, by the way, is from Susan Blackmore, not Marcello Truzzi)
New member Izanagi add this to the discussion:
Message 25 Because there are people who are agnostic atheists and there are people who are agnostic theists. Agnostic atheists do not believe in deities but they also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnostic theists believe in deities but also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable.
Message 24 For example, I am an agnostic Deist. I am a Deist because I believe in God, although my idea of God is somewhat modified from the Judeo-Christian God. And I am agnostic because while I believe God exists, I cannot know that he exists. For me, it is a matter of faith. I'd be happy to tell you my subjective reasons for believing, but I am almost certain my subjective reasons won't convince you if you happen to not believe in God. So I feel anything unknowable shouldn't be argued as if it is, i.e. trying to convince someone of your claim because your claim is right and theirs is wrong. That, to me, shouldn't be done.
To flesh out this distinction of atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic, agnostic theist and theist, I pulled in the Dawkins Scale (Message 34):
quote:1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
1&2: theist: burden of proof needed 3-5: agnostic: no burden of proof 6&7: atheist: burden of proof needed
If nobody wants to provide evidence for the negative hypothesis of atheism (6&7), then fine and dandy: the point is made, and pseudoskepticism is alive and well.
If people want to claim that they are really agnostic atheists, then fine and dandy: they are 5's on the list, and not effectively different from agnostic deists as 3's, basing their view on their subjective evaluation of the pros and cons.
Perhaps we can start further discussion on the issue of atheist evidence for the negative hypothesis with people posting where they put themselves on the Dawkins Scale, and why.
To start, I'm a 3, and my reason for leaning to the theistic side is personal subjective experience that leads me to believe there is possibly a spiritual essence to life that can be further explored with an open mind. More need not be said, other than that I have seen absolutely no evidence to contradict this position.
What do they have to prove? Do they have to prove that they "cannot know for certain" or do they have to prove that they "think God is very improbable" or do they have to prove that they "live {their} life on the assumption that {a god} is not there?
They need to prove why they choose 6 (or 7) instead of 4 or 5. We ask this of 2's (and 1's) frequently - why should 6's (and 7's) get a free ride?
... but since they admit they cannot know, I don't see how we can expect a defninitive and compelling demonstration of the truth of the matter. You might, and presumably do, think those reasons are not compelling to you.
What puzzles me is your idea that somebody that begins their position with 'I cannot know for certain' would not be regarded as agnostic or as being 'too certain'.
RAZD, the default position is indeed the suspension of judgment when lacking any data.
I think everyone is pretty much agreed on that issue. The problem arises when people feel they have reason to make a choice to one side or the other while not having any reason to do so.
There is a point at which suspension of judgment becomes unreasonable. For example compare the difference between the unsubstantiated claim that there is a person in an adjacent room. ... Compare that example to the claim that there is a gargantuan dragon in the adjacent room. ... Now, to spark further discussion I propose that there are some circumstances where pure skepticism is insufficient for practical application. For instance, I assume you are fairly confident there is not a live armadillo in your living room.
Curiously, the issue involves a simple paradigm: the default position is agnostic, and that if you chose a positive or a negative position you have a burden of providing evidence. The term pseudoskeptic was invented to apply to those who claimed to have a negative position due to being a skeptic rather than due to evidence.
How about this: I am a 6 on that scale. My evidence to back this up is that every system of belief I have encountered that involves a god has either made predictions which reality fails to conform to, or is such that Occam's Razor strips out every important aspect. Reality is, to the best of my ability to determine, indistinguishable from one which does not contain a god. Therefore, it would be unreasonable of me to behave in a manner inconsistent with this conclusion until such time as solid evidence is presented to contradict it.
Here's an analogy: I define god as a pink elephant. I do not know of any pink elephants, therefore I don't believe in gods.
So how about it RAZD? Does this "evidence" live up to your completely subjective concept of "acceptable", ...
Does it convince me? No, for the simple reason that you are assuming you know enough about god/s to rule them out, and you have not presented evidence to substantiate that.
... or would you consider my behavior unreasonable?
That's for you to decide, but it is illogical, because it is based on an assumption, not a fact.
Right, understood, I must have evidence. Now, how can I get the evidence for it? How do I falsify your claim and therefore support my negative hypothesis with evidence against you position?
It's not about falsifying my hypothesis, it is about supporting your negative hypothesis.
If you can't find evidence, then the default position (agnostic) should apply, or you acknowledge that you make a choice that is not supported by logic or evidence.
Can you supply the objective evidence you promised, Straggler?
Can you?
THAT is the topic, straggler - providing evidence for your negative hypothesis, so you can demonstrate that you are not a pseudoskeptic.
If RAZD cannot apply the criteria he himself ...
Amusingly that is NOT the topic, so all you have demonstrated so far is that you cannot provide promised evidence, cannot stick to the topic and try to misrepresent the topic.
The topic is providing evidence for your negative hypothesis, so you can demonstrate that you are not a pseudoskeptic.
I'd like to go back to Message 69 and expand a bit on my previous answer (Message 73). You said:
My evidence to back this up is that every system of belief I have encountered that involves a god has either made predictions which reality fails to conform to, or is such that Occam's Razor strips out every important aspect. Reality is, to the best of my ability to determine, indistinguishable from one which does not contain a god.
You do realize that this amounts to saying there is an absence of evidence, because you reject that any evidence even provides a possibility of god/s, yes?
So how about it RAZD? Does this "evidence" live up to your completely subjective concept of "acceptable", or would you consider my behavior unreasonable?
Completely subjective evidence is allowed for #5 Agnostic Atheist (as it is for #3 Agnostic Theists), because tacit with that is the admission that the evidence is not compelling and that we don't really know. The subjective evidence is your reason for leaning to one side or the other of strict agnosticism.
Moving on.
Given no compelling reason why your definition of god is any better than another, I would have to say your logic follows.
You realize, don't you, that this is the All A is B, B, therefore A logical fallacy? That this simple analogy shows that your position is logically false?
We also see with Catholic Scientists post Message 87 that such assumptions can be wrong.
Then the question is how stringent your requirements of my qualifications would be for you to be convinced. Is there anyone who would be qualified to convince you one way or the other, or have you locked yourself into 3-5 on the scale by definition?
The same as I would expect you to ask of a #2 Theist - where is the objective evidence that validates your hypothesis?
There are some things that you *must* assume. For instance, when you jump you cannot be sure that you will come down. It is not a *fact* because you cannot possibly have experimented in the future. You appear to be claiming that jumping with the expectation of coming down is illogical because you (or anyone else) cannot possibly be qualified to state it as a fact.
Of course, so you are really saying that the only difference between a theist and an atheist is the assumption they make?
People keep telling me there is objective evidence for atheism, but so far none has been presented.
Yeah, prove is a hard standard. I'll settle for objective evidence that justifies\validates the negative position.
... I certainly ask 2's to provide their reason and may occasionally attempt to show potential problems with it, but I won't ask them for proof. If their reason is something like 'faith', I'll probably criticize it as a non-answer to the challenge in question.
If the reason/s are based on subjective evaluations that exhibit confirmation bias to belief/s worldview/s rather than evidence and an open minded approach, then they fail to show how they justify the additional step to go away from the central agnosticism.
I'm not sure why you think they should be a 5 rather than a 6, could you do me the courtesy of explaining why, given the words I used, it follows that one should be a 5? Could you explain why someone who says, 'I cannot know for certain' is being 'too certain'? Could you explain how their concession that they do not know for certain renders them unqualified for the title, 'agnostic'?
If you put the emphasis on being agnostic, as you say in Message 36
What do they have to prove? ... What puzzles me is your idea that somebody that begins their position with 'I cannot know for certain' would not be regarded as agnostic or as being 'too certain'.
Then either one is trying to weasel out of providing the objective evidence validation\justification that convinces them, or they are really a 5 but like to think they are a 6. This tends to fit the picture of cognitive dissonance, where there is a dissonance between what is claimed (believed about self) and where you are when push comes to shove (up against reality).
If their reason is something like 'faith', I'll probably criticize it as a non-answer to the challenge in question.
What this thread is about is the equal burden to demonstrate more than just opinion, belief, faith, (including any subjective evaluation of the relative validity of evidence), to the challenge in question.
The further you get from #4 - Pure Agnostic - the more you need to supply validating evidence to justify that position. As Truzzi says:
"The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. ... Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
Re: Partial absence of evidence vs total absense of evidence
Hi Moose (such a happy looking cat, btw)
Now you are looking for "proof" of why I hold this position. I hold this position because I find no reason to hold the opposing position. I find there to be a total lack of evidence for God's existence.
The question is why do you need to hold the negative position without having any objective evidence for it? Why don't you find an equal lack of reason to believe in the absence of god/s?
Now of course, this falls into the category of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
And yet time and again it seems that this is where the arguments always end up, perhaps dressed up in some high-sounding words to attempt to disguise the fact.
Thus I find the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to be illegitimate. The phrase mutates into "TOTAL absence of evidence IS evidence of absence".
Which just means that you have assumed you know everything, or have investigated every corner and niche inside and outside the universe.
At least you are honest about going with the absence of evidence route.
Curiously, personal opinion has no effect on reality.
I guess I'm just confused then because, wouldn't falsifying your hypothesis be in support of my negative hypothesis? Isn't that in fact the only way I can support my negative hypothesis with evidence?
So you see no way to support a negative hypothesis, and yet this doesn't make you question whether the negative position is valid?
If you can see no reason to believe a positive hypothesis, and no reason to believe a negative hypothesis, doesn't that make you de facto an agnostic on the issue?
First of all, no it is not a logical fallacy. You didn't state "All A is B", you stated "A = B"; that isn't descriptive, it is definitive. You defined "God" as "pink elephants", so they are interchangeable. The following "B, therefore A" is logically sound.
So in your experience all other definitions fit into the mold of being pink elephants? Or is the definition necessarily inadequate? I would have thought that the implication was obvious that such a definition was not complete.
This is the mistake you make - you assume you have included all A in your B, so that B is then representative of A.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
