Pseudoskepticism and logic

Hi Onifre, Which is not a get-out-of-burden-free card.The need to support a negative hypothesis is independent of any positive hypothesis.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) • • •

Hi Onifre, What is needed for the hypothesis that all human concepts of god are made up is evidence that indeed all the concepts are made up.Without that specific, empirical and objective evidence the claim that "people make things up" is not evidence of anything. Yes making a positive claim means having a burden of evidence for the positive hypothesis.One can equally claim that "there could NOT be a god" is also made up, so that anyone asserting this position bears a burden of evidence for the negative hypothesis.The agnostic can say "there could be gods" could be made up OR they could be real AND "there could NOT be gods" could be made up OR it could be true, however we just don't have enough information to say one way or the other. Fair enough, that processing are virtually contemporary with the observations Right, and neither of us can judge the validity of that experience with just a singular experience. Which is agnostic, by default, yes? The whole purpose of that argument was not to assert that it is true, but to show that the negative hypothesis is necessarily asserting that it is false. The hypothesis that "there are no gods" needs to include any and all possible gods, or it fails to be a valid concept.The claim that "some gods do not exist" will likely not surprise or offend many theists, right? Which brings me back to agnostic as the default. But the point of this thread is that people assert they are atheists without having to know my definition - why and how is that?Or do we find that the logical conclusion is agnostic?If there is no reason to be theistic on it's own merits and the available evidence
AND
if there is no reason to be atheistic on it's own merits and the available evidence
THEN
there is no reason to believe either hypothesis has sufficient evidence to reach a logical conclusion.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) • • •

Hi Phage0070 But why not non-belief for the negative hypothesis? Why is this so difficult to answer? Certainly - which is why this argument is valid for agnostic atheism, that is predominantly uncertain, and not for atheism (with a touch of agnosticism added just to barely avoid unseemly certainty).So why a 6 then? What takes you out of agnostic atheist to atheist. So falling in would prove that the appearance of solid ground is an illusion. Exactly my point. Which would ALSO be evidence that my current understanding is based on illusion. Exactly my point. I don't think you understand your own concept fully: if this world is illusion, not the way it appears to be, then why should I fear being disabused of that fact?You are aware, aren't you, that one of the tenets of Buddhism is that all life is illusion, and enlightenment is achieved when you learn that truth.Would you choose to stay in a world of illusion or embrace reality? Curiously, it appears you did not comprehend my response. I went for a long walk around the neighborhood this afternoon - and totally without any fear. Instead it was almost exciting to think that I could discover a new level of reality by such a simple process. Unfortunately nothing occurred, so I still have no evidence that your concept is true or false and no need to consider either option worthy of worry.Better luck next time. Message 163
Including the assertion that the *other* evidence is made up, which means it is not made up, which means that this assertion is false, which means ...Let me know when you've figured it out.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : clrty

---

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) • • •

Hi PaulK, Which is just becoming another excuse to avoid the issue of showing evidence or logical proof for being predominantly atheistic rather that predominantly agnostic. Message 157 to Modulus:

quote:

---

So we have ...

• (strong) atheists - predomonantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7)
• agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5)
• agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4)
• agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3)
• (strong) theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2)

---

So what makes you a predominantly atheist rather than predominantly agnostic? Do you have evidence or only a subjective assertion? Message 1

quote:

---

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; ... 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 ... he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."

---

What makes you think you get a free ride? Special Pleading?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : (strong) added

---

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) • • •

Hi bluegenes, it seems we have a comprehension problem here. Sorry, but I don't see it that way. Why? because I'm a 4 -- agnostic. I'm curious to why you think anyone has to be a 6. Then it isn't necessary to defend a positive position when there's no evidence for the negative, and we can make up all kinds of positive assertions that don't need to be defended.Creationists that assert that life could not have evolved from chemicals don't have to show how they come to that conclusion. There was no disparaging comment, but you felt you needed to attack me rather than the issue, and that is still an ad hominem by definition.You should be able to defend atheism on it's own merits. Because you assert that they are not true. You've made a claim: that claim requires evidence to support it or you are just making an assumption based on faith in your personal opinion. Nope, because the defining part of agnostic is not a person who adds "but I'm fairly sure that X is the truth" at the end - which is what 2 or 6 are saying.

quote:

---

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]

---

So you can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, the 3 & 5 positions under agnostic.

quote:

---

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people,[3] using agnostic in the sense of noncommittal

---

Where the defining element is being noncommittal.

quote:

---

Definition of the term according to Thomas Henry Huxley

​

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." [6]

​

"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." [7]

---

So you should be agnostic by default if you have no conclusive evidence pro or con, and if you ARE claiming that concepts are false that you should be able to demonstrate it with evidence or logical proofs.Which is my point rather well reinforced, thank you.What's your evidence for being committed to a position that is not noncommittal?Can we address the issue?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : =gold

---

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) • • •

Hi Phage0070, begining to go with the ad hominems? Curiously this also characterizes the responses I have had so far from atheists on this thread: not one has tried to provide evidence to justify their predominantly negative position. No, I am "treating it" as if it just doesn't matter right now, or at any point in the future until more information is available. Is it really that hard to understand this position?Your argument is just the argument from incredulity that I can be agnostic on this issue, and this has added nothing to the issue of supporting claims where you say something cannot be so. Have you asked? ?There's evidence?Occam's razor is not evidence. Occam's razor is not a logical proof.And, curiously, YEC's don't get to use that assertion for the origins of life to get out of the burden to demonstrate their assertion. Why do you get a free pass? Special pleading?

• (strong) atheists - predominantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7)
• agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5)
• agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4)
• agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3)
• (strong) theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2)

So what makes you a predominantly atheist rather than predominantly agnostic? Do you have evidence or only a subjective assertion? Message 1

quote:

---

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; ... 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 ... he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."

---

Do we find that indeed the logical conclusion is agnostic?If there is no reason to be theistic on it's own merits and the available evidence
AND
If there is no reason to be atheistic on it's own merits and the available evidence
THEN
There is no reason to believe either hypothesis has sufficient evidence to reach a logical conclusion.It's pretty simple: Huxley figured it out some time ago.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : (strong) added

---

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) • • •

Hi Phage0070, still playing word games. Curiously I am not one of the #2+ theists that claim that there is an afterlife, so you would need to ask them. I'm undecided and there is no need to rush when the answer will be coming soon enough anyway.Do you know what it means to face death?You've asked if I would willingly place myself in jeopardy of falling into a magically invisible chasm in your hypothetical scenario, and the answer is yes, for the reasons provided, plus the fact that it would be unreasonable to think that you could magically avoid such a fate. You've already made it a supernatural event with my name on it.Such an instance would absolutely demonstrate that the what-was-known rules of behavior of objects was now falsified. At which point you would then -- if you were a true skeptic -- need to question the validity of all those what-was-known rules of behavior, you could not just assume that they would still apply. Including the effect of gravity, and what is life. Perhaps what I fall into is my personal heaven - how would you know?So no, I don't live as if it is false, I live as if it doesn't matter whether it is true or false. Correct: they are asserting that X does not exist. Correct, it is a NEGATIVE claim.Atheism is an assertion that X does not exist, just like the YEC's above. That the positive claim is false. That is being agnostic, not atheistic.

---

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) • • •

Hi Onifre, Message 182 included. Deist: god in unknowable, being outside our universe of perception/s or having gone off to do other things.Onifre: so how do you define god?Deist: how do you define 42?Enjoy.ps - try this for better information on deism today.Edited by RAZD, : ps.

---

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) • • •

Hi bluegenes, Which I've thrown out, as you and others can't get past the probability numbers that are NOT part of my argument OR part of the OP. Try this:

• strong atheists - predominantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7)
• agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5)
• agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4)
• agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3)
• strong theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2)

No, being agnostic on omphalism - which is the point - means that it doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I treat this in the same manner that I treat Phage0070's miracle chasm.If it's true then it's true,
If it's false then it's false.Either way it doesn't matter to how I would behave. But I can remain completely agnostic - not caring pro or con - to your claim that they are mutually exclusive. You, however, have now made a positive assertion that you need to provide evidence for.Good luck with that.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : strong added

---

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) • • •

Hi PaulK, Curiously THE TOPIC is providing evidence for any negative hypothesis is just as much of a burden as providing evidence for a positive hypothesis.

• strong atheists - predominantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7), has a negative hypothesis based on evidence. Bears burden to show evidence.
  ​
• agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5), has a neutral hypothesis with a belief that a negative hypothesis MAY be true based on subjective opinion.
  ​
• agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4), has a neutral hypothesis, that more evidence is needed before a rational decision can be made.
  ​
• agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3), has a neutral hypothesiswith a belief that a positive hypothesis MAY be true based on subjective opinion.
  ​
• strong theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2), has a positive hypothesis based on evidence. Bears burden to show evidence.

Negative claim = burden to show evidence or proof of the claim.Positive claim = burden to show evidence or proof of the claim.Neutral claim = no burden, and no assertion that pro or con is necessarily truer than the other. ooo now we get projection? Curiously this doesn't explain why I have sooo much fun with this.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : strong added

---

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) • • •

Hi Minnemooseus, thanks for the clairification. You are free to have your own subjective opinion of course, however I note that you also have this opinion: I've always liked "apathistic" better than agnostic (which has a confused history) as it really captures the essence of not caring if it is pro of con until you have some kind of evidence.Curiously, being apatheistic on the universe, and atheistic on the earth, would (quick mental calculation of average values integrated of vast concepts) mean you are better than 99.9% apatheistic overall.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) • • •

Hi Rrhain, you're repeating yourself, so this applies to Message 190, Message 191 and Message 192, as well, so you can have all your thoughts brought together. So you are going to start making up falsehoods about my position/s instead of dealing with the issue. How familiar. Which is not a reason to NOT to be open minded about god/s. Thanks. What model? That vanilla is the best flavor? Doesn't that claim require supporting evidence? Fascinatingly repetition of the same assertion 50 times does not make it true. Asked and answered. The model works. I refer you to the original post again:

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism

​

The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]

​

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:

​

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. 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. 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.

​

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

​

The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in fringe fields where opposition from those within the scientific mainstream or from scientific skeptics is strong. In 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

​

"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 . . . I have to say itmost of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type."[10]

​

Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[11] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[12] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[13]

---

​

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.

---

If we ASSUME that "the model works" is Rrhainian obfustication for "strong atheism works" then you have made a claim that is not neutral to the issue of god/s but asserts a negative claim.This claim, like any negative claim, bears a burden to provide evidence or logical proof.If we ASSUME that "the model works" means something else and is used as a red herring or straw man, then it is meaningless gibberish, and you are still left with needing to justify your strong atheist position.Perhaps you need to add a few sprinkles of clarification to your post.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) • • •

Hi Otto Tellick, my apologies, but I spent too much time today answering Archangel, Message 302, and I'll have to get back to you tomorrow.Enjoy.

Hi Modulus, I'll have to get back to you tomorrow, but I just wanted you to know that I added a small edit to my previous reply on the modified list.

---

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) • • •

Thanks Onifre, That is one definition, however deism is not a defined sect. See
http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html

quote:

---

While there are no official tenets of Deism, many of the following unofficial tenets might be the best way to introduce generally accepted beliefs within Deism. The unofficial tenets of Deism are:

---

There is no strict one-size-fits-all definition of deism as it is a personal philosophy\religion. Excellent. Where's your evidence? Perhaps at a later time, if the source above does not satisfy you, but it is off topic on this thread.The purpose of this thread is to focus on the negative hypothesis, and the need to provide evidence to supbstantiate a negative hypothesis.You have just claimed 100% sure-no-doubt-left that the concept of a "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" god is false.This means you have evidence that shows that this cannot be the case.Do you have absolute proof (a) that I made it up (which would include a complete lack of the concept posted in any other source ... ) or (b) that the concept itself is false (ie that a knowable god exists instead ... ) or (c) that there absolutely is no god of any kind anywhere anywhen.Evidence is needed when you make a claim.Have fun with that.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...

---

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) • • •