Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 226 of 562 (526623)
09-28-2009 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2009 5:11 PM


Re: False Dichotomy? What False Dichotomy?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Certainly, humans didn't produce the concept, nor the facilitation, of communication as it is something that gradually evolved.
Or am I missing the point?
I think you *are* missing the point. The behavior of making things up to explain the unknown is undoubtedly something that gradually evolved, in the same sense that our sentience evolved over time.
The point is that while the behavior was the product of our environment, selection, genetics, etc.. each individual concept is the result of the human mind. Birds may have evolved communication in a similar way we did, but birds don't speak Chinese. Communication isn't purely the product of the human mind, but *Chinese* is. In that same sense you can consider the production of deities and other similar mental shortcuts as not purely a product of the human mind, but you can consider every sample as being so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2009 5:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 227 of 562 (526626)
09-28-2009 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by RAZD
09-28-2009 7:21 PM


Re: finally, a description
Hi RAZD,
That is one definition, however deism is not a defined sect.
Thanks for that link. It explained it well.
From what I gathered, and I hope I'm not giving a generalized definition, deism seems to be a completely subjective belief. Based on personal experiences, faith in ones ability to apply logic to nature, and speculation. What changes seems to be the description of god. And according to you, there is no single concept of said deity, so there is no agreed upon description.
To me, this seems so vague and nondescript, that atheism, or even agnosticism, doesn't seem relevant. My opinion I guess, but you really aren't describing anything more than personal awe for things grander than you. You seem to want to label that god, don't know why, but I can say for sure that I'm not an atheist toward that concept. I hold no position at all.
Excellent. Where's your evidence?
You made it up. The reason I know is because you don't have any objective evidence for it. There is no other logical conclusion other than, you pulled it out your, as the brits would say, arse.
Perhaps at a later time, if the source above does not satisfy you, but it is off topic on this thread.
Fair enough. But as you can see by my reply to the source above, I'm not an atheist to your personal, experienced, speculated "god."
The purpose of this thread is to focus on the negative hypothesis, and the need to provide evidence to supbstantiate a negative hypothesis.
But how can anyone have a negative hypothesis toward an unevidenced assertion, RAZD?
You are making a logical fallacy here, RAZD, in assuming that the premise is true without evidence to support it. And that we have a negative hypothesis toward this premise.
This doesn't follow. First, you need evidence to establish your premise. The idea for god came before the atheist, right? The premise came first. However, without evidence to support that premise, you don't actually have a true premise, and it can logically be dismissed until you do.
The way I see it, I'm not saying there is no god (which would make no sense if you think about it), I'm saying you had no reason to ever conclude there was when you have no evidence for it. Yet you introduced this premise (that god exists in the universe) and now I'm forced to hold to a negative hypothesis. Why?
Athesim is not a negative hypothesis, it's just the place where one stand until there is evidence to make you consider moving from there. Deist have no evidence to move from that place either, but they do so subjetively.
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.
No, you must have misread. I said you made it up. Whether you happen to have nailed it - (with all the possibilities there are for how this god may look, or not look) - or not, is of no concern to me. I know, based on the fact that you are using no objective evidence, that you made up that concept subjectively, from personal experiences and speculation.
I don't know how you can't see that there is no other option but to conclude you made the concept up, when there is no other evidence but your subjective conclusion? It's guess work at best, RAZD. If it wasn't in your mind (made up by you because as it says in your deism link, it's personally experienced), then where did you get the evidence for it?
Evidence is needed when you make a claim.
Then please show me the evidence to support your premise.
Have fun with that.
Eh...it was a lot funner watching England lose to Uruguay in the FIFA U-20 World Cup, on Saturday.
But I "enjoyed" it nonetheless.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2009 7:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 4:15 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:16 AM onifre has replied
 Message 338 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2009 12:56 AM onifre has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 228 of 562 (526637)
09-28-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Otto Tellick
09-27-2009 6:27 AM


At least an attempt at in depth analysis, rather than off the cuff stuff
Hi again Otto Tellick, interesting post, let me see if I can get through this today, and sorry I missed your previous post.
So now you want evidence that all human concepts of god are made up.
Not really, although if you have such evidence I would be happy to look at it. No, this issue is raised by those that claim that the evidence that there are no gods is that people make things up. If this is the evidence provided for the absolute absence of god/s, then it logically follows that you need to demonstrate that all concepts of god are made up, just for starters. If the person claims that there are no gods because SOME concepts are made up, then the argument falls on it's face, yes?
Well, at first blush that seems reminiscent of the Creationist who demands that all details of all evolutionary steps from fish to human be explicitly demonstrated with observable evidence, otherwise no evidence whatsoever can be deemed sufficient -- but that's just a knee-jerk reaction on my part. Moving on...
Sorry, but it is not that I am necessarily asking for evidence that all, rather it is that the burden of evidence is on those that make a claim.
For instance, the YEC making the claim that the absence of transitional fossils means that evolution is false, needs to show how this makes evolution false: he has a burden to provide substantiation for his claim.
Shall we look again at steps 9 and 10 of your epistemological algorithm? Or maybe it will suffice to consider that hypotheses, theories and similar assertions may justifiably be held when they are supported by / consistent with available evidence, and can be considered the better alternative in comparison to other assertions that are not consistent with the available evidence.
One is always allowed to state what they think the evidence leads to, however that is still just a subjective opinion, rather than evidence. The best you could justify from this kind of opinon based analysis is agnostic atheist or agnostic theist: unsure but tending to believe pro or con based on personal world view rather than objective empirical evidence.
... and can be considered the better alternative in comparison to other assertions that are not consistent with the available evidence.
Just to be clear: if you are convinced that an explanation is inconsistent with available evidence then you should be able to show that evidence contradicts the concept, but if it is just what you think based on your subjective view then you are still in agnostic territory.
Or Pseudoskeptic territory, thinking that your opinion is sufficient justification for your view of a negative (or positive) claim.
We have an assertion here that human conceptions of a deity are all made up.
Yes, and I've dealt with this several times already.
Daily observations of various people asserting the existence of a deity, and describing its attributes, leave no doubt that these individuals are indeed making this stuff up -- they make claims that directly contradict their own previous descriptions, descriptions provided by other people, and various written records that describe attributes of deities. And of course, these written records all conflict with each other, and many of them contain internal inconsistencies in their various descriptions of deities as well.
Which only demonstrates that the god in question is not well understood, that the conflicts and inconsistencies are likely based, perhaps, on partial understanding and perhaps strongly susceptible to individual world views for how that partial understanding is conveyed to others. It is natural for people to frame unusual experiences within their usual experiences and the cultural concepts of the time.
What you need to demonstrate is that there is not a kernel of truth to all of these descriptions, and if you cannot show that for ALL cases, then you have failed to make the case that several/many/most (you can't know how many) could have valid consistent concepts inside the overall description.
We could (as I suggested earlier) rely on just the logical and philosophical steps of your "algorithm", and observe that the notion of a "deity" has intrinsic properties in its "definition" that make it a "pseudo-entity", whose essential property is its lack of any objective property.
I'm assuming that what you "suggested earlier" was (Message 37):
RAZD writes:
...
9. if you have a concept that does not seem tractable to forming scientific tests of validity, either because it is inherently untestable, or because of a lack of technology to make the test, and where the experience has not been repeated, then one is left at (7), with an unknown possibility at best, and the concept should be considered on philosophical grounds rather than scientific, if one is interested in pursuing it,
10. such philosophical considerations, to be valid, must be logically consistent and not contradicted by any known evidence,
...
Okay, here's where we are: the theist has an assertion of an entity with deliberate intentions and direct influence, whose actual intentions and influences are essentially not knowable by humans. Is that philosophically tenable? I would say no, because it is essentially nonsensical.
Which is just your opinion again about the possibility of the positive hypothesis, and this is not evidence for a negative hypothesis. If something is in truth unknowable then the default logical position is agnostic.
A deity is an entity with willful intent, responsible for the creation of reality as we know it, and this attribute in itself means that we cannot observe it directly in any objective sense, let alone have any direct, verifiable knowledge of its intent.
Which is an excellent argument for being an agnostic on the issue: insufficient evidence pro or con to make a logical decision, so let's leave the question open and move on.
But allow me to propose an alternative explanation (a theory, perhaps) about deities, which is consistent with the available evidence, and will (I hope) lend some support to those of us at position #7 on the Dawkins scale. I'm sorry I cannot go into rigorous evidentiary detail, but I hope most of the steps will involve topics familiar to you, so you can assess the availability of relevant evidence on your own. My hope is that given this explanation, we can cover all known instances of posited deities, and explain quite a lot more in addition.
Another 7: absolutely convinced that atheism is true. Fascinating. Lead on.
Reviewing what we are able to deduce about the past 3 billion years of known life on Earth, based solely on objective evidence and plausible natural processes, we see a progression in the nature of "awareness" (knowledge of environment) attributable to life forms. For the multicellular forms that develop mobile behaviors and specialized cells for perception and movement, the development of awareness shows an increase in the acuity and diversity of perception, a broadening of the range of movement behaviors, and a progressive elaboration of the cells that mediate between perception and movement:
  • Initially, it's just a matter of chemical reactions to the medium in which the organism is situated; movement toward supportive environments and/or away from threatening environments is favored by natural selection.
  • Over time, as organisms and their behavior repertoires become more complex, perception expands to additional modalities: temperature, tactile contact, vibration, light/vision, acoustics/audition.
  • The specialization of cells that mediate between perception and behavior leads to greater advantage in natural selection as these cells form denser structures that improve both the speed and the appropriateness of responses to wider varieties of stimuli.
  • As some species develop "socialized" patterns of behavior, it's possible to discern notions of intention: patterns of behavior that reflect some degree of construction or planning of steps on the part of individuals.
  • At some point (with the introduction of Sapiens), the specialized mediation cells develop sufficient density and structure, and are connected to receptors and behaviors that are sufficiently tuned and adapted, to permit both the conception and communication of arbitrary symbols to represent and describe things and actions, leading also to the capacity for propositional logic and the ability to express questions and positive and negative assertions.
  • Having positive and negative assertions, and descriptions using arbitrary symbols, the Sapiens organism also has the capacity to posit entities that are not observable and have no objectively verifiable basis -- in effect, Sapiens can talk about things that do not exist.
That culminating ability is a natural by-product of a skill that offers obvious advantages for language users whose vocabulary lacks specific terms for describing or making assertions about novel objects or events.
Yes, intelligence and the ability to think with symbols appears to be an emergent property of life, and that the selection process seems to guide organisms to this end: there are many species able to communicate with symbols, and we are becoming adept at understanding parts of this ability in other species.
There is also evidence one could cite showing how the universe seems to be seeded with the building blocks for biological life based on amino acids wherever conditions are suitable.
One of the essential functions of science is to create or adapt vocabulary as needed to meet specific needs for the communication of objective knowledge, and part of this process is to carefully delineate what a given term does not refer to, as well as what it does refer to.
Including the skeptical analysis of every proposition to see if it holds up, and not by prejudging a pro or con position based on opinion and subjective preconceptions from one's worldview.
And whenever there is an hypothesis that doesn't have sufficient evidence pro or con, the scientific approach is to adopt a "we don't know" approach while waiting for evidence.
But when it comes to assertions about a deity -- a willful entity whose intentions are somehow served by the creation and progression of this physical reality that we occupy, whose nature and intentions are unknowable but are supposed to be relevant to us somehow -- we might as well be talking about those "colorless green ideas" made famous by Chomsky.
That's your definition, which of course doesn't mean that it is true or false, it's just one of the possibilities.
If you want to assert that I have not presented an adequately rational and verifiable account for the conclusion that "all human conceptions of a deity are made up", I hope you can describe what is lacking here.
Evidence that this actually applies to all concepts of deities - for that kernel of evidence is still missing, and what you still have is your opinion about the possibility.
If you are going to also assert that, because of whatever I may have left out, I must call myself an agnostic, meaning that I must allow some possibility for the existence of a deity, our discussion might be left in an odd state: your assertion entails some sort of description for a possible entity, and this description, in my view, must be made up, especially if it involves any attribution of willful intent, and more so if this intent is supposed to have direct relevance or impact on my day-to-day life. Conversely if you want a maximally "generalized" entity -- this deity is simply the thing that accounts for everything we can't explain on objective, naturalistic grounds -- you're just pushing a god-of-the-gaps idea, and I don't see any value in that.
And yet curiously, neither the opening post nor strict logic, requires a positive hypothesis to have a negative hypothesis, all it needs is a negative hypothesis for the burden of proof to kick in: you have made a claim that does not appear to be based on evidence, and unless you can supply the actual objective empirical data that demonstrates the validity of your position, then the invisible chasm of pseudoskepticism opens under you.
Bear in mind that if there is any basis at all for the opposite position ("not all human conceptions of a deity are made up"), this would need to be followed up with how these non-made-up conceptions were formed, (Be specific, so we know how to recognize the difference between made-up and not-made-up!)
Ah, but you see we are not talking about the well-known part of making a positive claim and supporting it with evidence, we are talking about the equal burden to provide supporting evidence for ANY negative claim.
If you are making the assertion that the concepts of X are all made up then the burden is on you to support your claim with more than opinion.
If you make the claim that Y does not exist because all concepts of X are made up then you ALSO need to show how this "X-is-made-up" claim shows that Y does not exist.
Bottom line: Onifre and I (and some others here, presumably including Straggler) will continue to allow that you may hold any personal (internal, subjective) notions you like regarding the possible existence and attributes of deities, according to your own "idiolectal" gyrations of entities defined only by negations, but we won't agree that your personal notions are sufficient reason to label us as "agnostic", because the only basis for that label is your own personal notion of a deity.
Curiously, that is not the argument on this thread. My beliefs are irrelevant to why you claim to be an atheist - I'm betting you considered yourself an atheist long before you met me - and thus my beliefs and personal opinions are irrelevant to your need to demonstrate evidence for your non-neutral position, to answer your burden of proof.
One last point to elaborate my evolutionary explanation of awareness, for those who are concerned about the notion of purpose: The development of intentional behavior brings with it the ability to form a sense of purpose, and to perceive purpose in the actions of others. Purpose is an "emergent property" of Sapiens, and (presumably) of any other organism that might happen to follow a similar path of cognitive development. As members of the Sapiens species, we establish purpose. We create it.
Amusingly I fully agree with your evolutionary explanation, as it is part of my personal opinion of reality.
As Dawkins would say, there is no need to posit a deity. To the extent that our sense of purpose leads to behavioral patterns conducive to our continued existence as a species, natural selection favors this property of our current evolutionary status.
If there is no need to posit a deity, there is also no need to posit the actual absence of a deity, and a skeptic can just say there is no reason to form a decision at this time.
The default logical position is agnostic until there is reason\evidence\proof that pro or con is a supported claim.
Pretending otherwise, for any of your beliefs, while continuing to apply this same standard to science or the beliefs of other people is being a pseudoskeptic.
We have some ability to mold our sense of purpose -- and our particular intentions -- in order to achieve the best overall result for survival as members of a dominant species living in a highly interdependent network of countless species on a finite planet. We are learning that natural selection can (and often does) produce better results than intentional design, and that greater diversity is generally better than reduced diversity.
Again, I fully agree: if the purpose of the universe is to develop sentient beings capable of spectuacular thoughts, then evolution is a self-repairing mechanism that doesn't need constant tweaking.
In this context, something that essentially amounts to the golden rule is our best first intention, applicable not only to other people but to life in general, as far as this is possible. Ultimately, "do unto others..." isn't a religious doctrine; it is an ecological imperative.
With different results for different species eh?
Recap: Another 7: absolutely convinced that atheism is true. No evidence that the claim is true other than personal opinion.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-27-2009 6:27 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-29-2009 12:38 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 235 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-29-2009 1:28 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 229 of 562 (526640)
09-28-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
09-28-2009 7:22 AM


Hi Mike, nice to see you back in the fold.
That's quite correct, logically speaking. People usually think that a negative claim is much better than a positive one. But look at the moon conspiracy. They claim we didn't go to the moon.
Your opening message seems completely sound as it's easily provable.
Yes there are numerous examples of negative claims and their evident need to meet the burden of proof or substantiation.
Good to read you, I will read more of the topic now.
Catch ya later.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 7:22 AM mike the wiz has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 230 of 562 (526646)
09-28-2009 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Kitsune
09-28-2009 10:39 AM


Re: Zen Deism == agnostic theism
Thanks LindaLou, also for the POTM on the fraud thread post/s. Too bad my last was hidden - it took me almost a whole day to assemble.
Thanks for the post. I don't know how you write consistently detailed and well reasoned responses when there are so many people arguing against you. I find it overwhelming when that happens to me.
Well it does get tiresome when people keep making the same rebutted arguments or insist on being off topic ... but then one of the effects of cognitive dissonance is to try to avoid the topic.
I didn't pursue the chi discussion either because I figured people would start trotting out studies that purport to prove that acupuncture is no better than placebo, etc. I'm sure you could find those if you looked but it would be a long debate to have to explain to closed-minded people why I accept the possible reality of chi despite that, and then we're getting into faults and bias in studies, and I've been there before . . . wasn't pleasant.
Pity, it seems to be something that transcends some religions.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2009 10:39 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 5:32 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 231 of 562 (526647)
09-28-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Straggler
09-28-2009 6:59 PM


Re: Special Pleading for the atheist position to excuse the absence of evidence?
Curiously, still no evidence for the negative hypothesis.
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.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Straggler, posted 09-28-2009 6:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 3:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 232 of 562 (526648)
09-28-2009 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
09-19-2009 5:00 PM


Moderation may be needed to keep on the topic
Hi AdminNosy,
There seem to be a growing number of posts that are not dealing with the topic.
Message 1
quote:
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 . . .
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.
Message 199
quote:
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.
This isn't about positive claims, but about the burden of proof\substantiation for negative claims.
A pseudoskeptic claims something is true (pro or con) that is not supported by the evidence.
Can I ask that all discussions not about the burden of proof or substantiation for negative claims and hypothesis be moderated?
Thanks.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2009 5:00 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 1:27 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 247 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2009 6:45 AM RAZD has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 233 of 562 (526665)
09-29-2009 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by RAZD
09-28-2009 9:26 PM


Re: At least an attempt at in depth analysis, rather than off the cuff stuff
RAZD writes:
If there is no need to posit a deity, there is also no need to posit the actual absence of a deity, and a skeptic can just say there is no reason to form a decision at this time.
The default logical position is agnostic until there is reason\evidence\proof that pro or con is a supported claim.
Ah. Yes, this clarifies things very well. It's a bit sad that I went on at such length over a misinterpretation of your earlier material, but your careful response has really helped, and I appreciate your time, patience and perseverance.
These two statements of yours provide a brief, simple and dispassionate antidote for the confusion and emotion that too often surround the terms "atheist" and "agnostic". It would seem that I've been a victim of the confusion myself -- the account of reality that leaves out a deity is so compelling to me that I just get carried away by it -- perhaps to the extent that I shouldn't really assign myself to point 7 on the Dawkins scale.
Or indeed, perhaps there simply shouldn't be a point 7 on the scale -- until there is firm evidence for it (which could happen, if/when our thinking and our language become capable of capturing and expressing it properly, but I don't know if we're there yet).
Thanks, RAZD -- this has been illuminating.
{AbE:} I'd like to stress that this "turn-around" of mine, agreeing to consider myself "agnostic atheist" rather than just "atheist", is not at all a move in the direction of accepting the concept of a deity in my own thinking and beliefs. Rather, it's a matter of making a different choice among competing definitions for the terms "agnostic" and "atheist". In my earlier posts, I was working on definitions that were somewhat different from the ones that work with RAZD's statements, and I'm thinking now that I was wrong to do so.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added closing paragraph

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2009 9:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 234 of 562 (526673)
09-29-2009 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by RAZD
09-28-2009 10:12 PM


Re: Moderation may be needed to keep on the topic
RAZD writes:
Can I ask that all discussions not about the burden of proof or substantiation for negative claims and hypothesis be moderated?
Only if you stop insisting atheism is a negative claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2009 10:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-29-2009 3:10 AM Phage0070 has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 235 of 562 (526674)
09-29-2009 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by RAZD
09-28-2009 9:26 PM


Golden Rule? Well, not really.
In this context, something that essentially amounts to the golden rule is our best first intention, applicable not only to other people but to life in general, as far as this is possible. Ultimately, "do unto others..." isn't a religious doctrine; it is an ecological imperative.
With different results for different species eh?
Yes, inescapably. We cannot hope (and really shouldn't try) to assure the continuation of all species through mere exertion of our own will, even if we could justifiably assert having enough wisdom for such a task (which is a ludicrous notion given the current state of our awareness). It is a conundrum, and I addressed it poorly. In any case, "do unto others..." isn't really apt. "Minimize the harm you cause..." perhaps, to the extent that there's an objective basis for assessing "harm".

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2009 9:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 10:08 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 236 of 562 (526685)
09-29-2009 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Phage0070
09-29-2009 1:27 AM


Re: Moderation may be needed to keep on the topic
Hi Phage,
This is now looking to me like you are where I was a day or so ago:
Phage0070 writes:
RAZD writes:
Can I ask that all discussions not about the burden of proof or substantiation for negative claims and hypothesis be moderated?
Only if you stop insisting atheism is a negative claim.
I tried to present a hypothesis that would make it clear how there was plenty of positive evidence for the atheist position. I still think that the bulk of evidence clearly favors the absence of a deity, and also clearly refutes many core assertions about all specific deities for which "earnest" descriptions have been published.
I also tried to establish on linguistic, cognitive and logical grounds that the very notion of a deity is simply ill-formed and vacuous. I still think that any assertion relating to a deity is essentially pointless and meaningless, and there is still the overwhelming absurdity of any human forming a "correct" conception of an entity that is by definition unknowable.
But still, I have to admit: the reasoning to conclude that there is no such thing as a deity remains just that -- reasoning. It's based on a body of evidence that leads firmly to the conclusion that there is no need to posit a deity, and when RAZD frames his position like this (in Message 228):
RAZD writes:
If there is no need to posit a deity, there is also no need to posit the actual absence of a deity, and a skeptic can just say there is no reason to form a decision at this time.
it seems entirely sensible, and I'm inclined and content to agree with that. Indeed, given my view that "deity" is a meaningless (or essentially undefinable) term, it makes perfect sense to posit nothing about it at all -- the less said about it the better.
Maybe it would help to view RAZD's argument like this (I think I'm getting it right, now): given two assertions like "The King of France is bald" and "God is bald", you can certainly respond to the first by saying "There is no King of France." But the only sensible response to the second is "I have no idea what you're talking about."
I know it seems inapt to refer to the latter response as being "skeptical", but it's the nature of objective discourse to be limited to saying either "I know" or "I don't know", and the term "skeptical" is what we apply to the latter case. It's a matter of being satisfied enough to establish a consensus and move on.
A further point that RAZD seems to be pushing is that objective discourse needs no additional constraints or conditions with respect to assertions about deities; when presented with such an assertion, we shouldn't need to say "this has no place in a scientific discussion" -- it should suffice to say "we don't know of any way to confirm or deny this."
If that is his position, I'm a little less sanguine about it, to the extent that it can be perceived as lowering the barriers for people who would like to push religious views into science classrooms, to the detriment of real critical thinking. But that's a topic for another thread, apparently.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 1:27 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 10:51 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 237 of 562 (526689)
09-29-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by RAZD
09-28-2009 10:04 PM


Re: Special Pleading for the atheist position to excuse the absence of evidence?
Curiously, still no evidence for the negative hypothesis.
None needed. The mutually exclusive alternative possibility is evidenced to an extent that even you cannot deny. The premise of your silly thread is just a giant straw man of your own construction.
The fact that your vague and ambiguous deistic god cannot actually be disproven (any more than the Immaterial Pink Unicorn or Mookoo can be disproven) does not detract from the very evidenced possibility that your gods and your immaterial experiences of said gods are internal products of your mind.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2009 10:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 8:36 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 254 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 8:42 AM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 238 of 562 (526694)
09-29-2009 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Kitsune
09-28-2009 9:43 AM


Re: Agnosticism vs. pseudoskepticism
As I've said several times in this ongoing debate, the evidence would seem to suggest that humans have a propensity for developing spiritual beliefs.
Yes that propensity is evidenced. As is the propensity to see monsters where science finds only windmills (to quote Phat I believe)
While the validity of particular beliefs is a separate debate, IMO there is possibly some underlying reality that people are interpreting in ways that make it more readily accessible and understandable to them.
Nobody is denying this as a possibility. But a far more evidenced possibility is that people are simply mis-interpreting very natural (although maybe not yet understood) phenomenon. Do we as a species not have a long history of invoking the supernatural and then later finding natural answers? Is this trend in fact not itself evidence that our propensity for invoking the supernatural is unhelpful rather than helpful as a means of progressing understanding?
Please prove to me that this stance is any less valid than "people make stuff up so all theistic beliefs are made up."
Firstly that simplistic assertion is not what is being said. Secondly does not the fact that the supernatural answers people have invoked throughout history have been found wanting in every single instance lead you to conclude that perhaps invoking the supernatural as an answer to anything just may not be the most sensible way forward?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2009 9:43 AM Kitsune has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 239 of 562 (526695)
09-29-2009 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by onifre
09-28-2009 8:17 PM


Re: finally, a description
RAZD writes:
"Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things."
Good grief you got a description of RAZD's deity out of him!
No, you must have misread. I said you made it up. Whether you happen to have nailed it - (with all the possibilities there are for how this god may look, or not look) - or not, is of no concern to me. I know, based on the fact that you are using no objective evidence, that you made up that concept subjectively, from personal experiences and speculation.
Exactly. Biased guessing.
I would not go as far as 7 on the Dawkins scale on the basis that he may possibly have guessed correctly. But that is the only reason why. Same with any other such entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by onifre, posted 09-28-2009 8:17 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 10:13 PM Straggler has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 240 of 562 (526697)
09-29-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by bluegenes
09-28-2009 11:59 AM


Re: Zen Deism == agnostic theism
Hi Bluegenes,
quote:
"Pseudo-skeptic" just seems to have become a mudslinging term for the two sides involved in "paranormal" investigations to sling at each other. Just a way of saying: "you're biased and I'm objective".
I first came across the term when I was trying to understand reasons why some people are so closed-minded to the possibility that some paranormal phenomena are real. These are people who make pre-judgements based on their own beliefs about what's really true; some of them spend a lot of time publicly decrying paranormal phenomena when it's clear they're not even interested in reading serious studies that have had positive results (or when they do, they do it in a cursory way and miss or ignore pieces of evidence). I don't see why the term can't be applied to anyone who pre-judges something when the evidence for such a judgement is lacking.
quote:
You could have equally applied it to all people who believe in a god, and think they're investigating theism/atheism seriously (I expect you agree with that).
Yes, this is still confirmation bias, as is clear with so-called archaeologists who go looking for Noah's Ark or similar things.
quote:
What do you think of the point that people from traditionally theistic cultures will frequently have a cultural bias in favour of theism in a theist/atheist debate/investigation?
Just that they have a tendency toward bias for those reasons. I don't think that RAZD or I have said that there's anything wrong with deciding to have faith that there is or isn't a god; just that a rational position is an agnostic one until more evidence is available.
quote:
Wouldn't the true skeptic regard all zero evidence propositions as equally unlikely?
No, because you're making the judgement of "unlikely" based on no evidence, and this leads toward confirmation bias in experiments. A true skeptic always keeps the doors open in case something new and interesting comes through.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2009 11:59 AM bluegenes has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024