Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 256 of 562 (526749)
09-29-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 5:21 AM


Re: Agnosticism vs. pseudoskepticism
Hi Linda,
The closest that science seems to come at the moment is quantum physics. The more we learn about the fabric of reality itself, the more we may be able to reconcile it with spirituality.
Not that I'm an expert, but nothing I've ever read in QM seems to be investigating god.
What I'm asking for is the method.
In Message 42, RAZD and I had this exchange:
RAZD writes:
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry.
Oni writes:
While I agree that it's not honest to hold to a position not having done the leg work of investigating, it also seems dishonest to claim someone hasn't done the research when no viable method of research is available.
Furthermore...
RAZD writes:
if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it.
Oni writes:
Fair enough, but what method exists to investigate the claim that would help provide proof against the claim?
And you posit:
Linda Lou writes:
No, because there may be ways of investigating that we have not yet discovered. I think the skeptical position would be that it could be possible to find evidence.
So lets see if I can follow the logic here.
(1) There is no method (currently) to directly investigate god.
(2) I am asked to provide evidence against god.
(3) I ask for the method to investigate it so that I may give evidence against it.
(4) I am told no method exists (currently).
Then how can I provide evidence against god if no method to investigate god exists?
How can atheism be a negative hypothesis under these scenarios?
God is not only an unevidenced assertion, it is also an assertion that can't be proven wrong because no method of investigating it exist. There is only one other area of human discourse that carries with it such conditions, and that is stuff people make up.
No other area of human discourse is like that. There is always a method to investigate, there is always a means to get evidence.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, exist as objective evidence for your premise - No method (currently) exists to get objective evidence. No avenue to investigate god exists. You said, maybe in the future we'll have a method, and maybe we'll find something. Yea, maybe. And if you do begin to provide evidence, and I still hold to my atheistic position, then and only then can you claim that I'm holding to a negative position.
But (currently) I am not holding to a negative position, because there is nothing to hold a negative position towards.
You can't hold a negative position to an unevidenced assertion.
Whether I personally can or not is beside the point. In this thread we're talking about assuming a negative hypothesis to be true when there is a lack of empirical evidence
It seems that here is where you and RAZD are failing to see our logic.
It's not that we're assuming a negative hypothesis to be true, what we are saying is that there is no negative hypothesis, because your premise has no supporting evidence.
Until it does, we have nothing to hold a negative hypothesis towards.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 5:21 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 9:34 AM onifre has replied

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


(1)
Message 257 of 562 (526752)
09-29-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by mike the wiz
09-29-2009 8:27 AM


Re: Zen Deism == agnostic theism
quote:
it makes me glad when I hear things from TRUE neutralists such as you and RAZD, and agnostics who are truly honest and fair, and unbiased. Good work guys.
Thanks Mike. I look forward to talking with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 8:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


(1)
Message 258 of 562 (526754)
09-29-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Straggler
09-29-2009 8:40 AM


Re: Example Please - Shining Beacon of Negativity Required
Straggler, I want to have a productive conversation with you. Honestly, I do. But for the upteenth time all I see is that you are misunderstanding or ignoring most of what I say to you. Maybe it really is cognitive dissonance, I don't know. I'm not going to keep repeating everything to you because lots of other people want to challenge me here. If you can demonstrate at some point that you have read what I've written and understand it, I'll be happy to take the conversation back up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 8:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 10:20 AM Kitsune has not replied

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


(1)
Message 259 of 562 (526756)
09-29-2009 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Stile
09-29-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Your imagination is rational?
Hi Stile, it's been a while. Let's start with:
quote:
The first step is to make sure that what you're talking about isn't pure imagination.
BUT . . . how? At least two threads have been written on this subject recently.
Some respond to the IPU with, "But that's just silly and we all know it." Why doesn't that wash with you guys? Because there are claims out there which may seem just as silly, in which people seriously believe. The question then becomes, what is real and what isn't, and how do we tell the difference?
See Message 51 for my hypothetical response to a hypothetical sighting of the IPU, fairies, ghosts, or whatever immaterial entity you like. You will find that while I might end up with a leaning one side or the other of 50/50 based on personal beliefs or likelihoods, ultimately without empirical evidence I would have to say I was agnostic. How could I not be, if the negative could not be proved?
So . . .
quote:
Are you sure you want to use the word "rational" in regards to an idea that cannot be differentiated from pure human imagination?
Yes, because "cannot be differentiated from the human imagination" is not the same thing as "it's made up" and therefore with no empirical evidence one way or the other, the correct rational position is true skepticism or agnosticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Stile, posted 09-29-2009 8:51 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Stile, posted 09-29-2009 12:29 PM Kitsune has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 260 of 562 (526761)
09-29-2009 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 8:04 AM


Re: Only 100%, not more, please!!
Hi, Linda
Biblical omphalism, Last Thursdayism, Islam and Deism are mutually exclusive propositions, which is all we need to know for our purposes here.
LindaLou writes:
Biblical omphalism is new to me: is that the notion that everything was created with the appearance of age, but the world and life on it are only a few thousand years old?
This, plus Last Thursdayism and Deism, are unprovable and there's no empirical evidence for or against them. There's no evidence for or against us living in a matrix. Therefore the rational stance IMO is 50/50.
Impossible. If you're 50/50 on any two of them, there's no room left for anything else.
Now, have you figured it out? Agnostic means you cannot know for sure, but it does not mean 50/50 on any specific proposition.
The rational agnostic stance on all of the above is:
"I cannot know for certain, but I think "x" is very unlikely".
The reason that they're all unlikely is that there's no positive evidence to support any of them, and they're several of an infinite field of mutually exclusive evidenceless possibilities that all have to be regarded as equally unlikely.
If you decide that one god creating the universe is more likely than ten goddesses or fifty elves doing so, you will have no evidence to support your view, and that would make you a pseudo-skeptic (the equivalent of deciding that a reported "ghost" phenomenon is an optical illusion or a real ghost prior to investigation, when there are a large number of other possible explanations), which is what the sociologist guy in the O.P. is on about.
When atheists describe a specific god proposition as extremely unlikely, they can do so confidently, because of the infinite range of competing equally evidenceless alternatives!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 8:04 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 9:52 AM bluegenes has replied

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


(1)
Message 261 of 562 (526773)
09-29-2009 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by onifre
09-29-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Agnosticism vs. pseudoskepticism
There are now two people on this thread who seem to have had a lightbulb moment -- that's cool. First Otto Tellick in Message 233, and now Onfire:
quote:
Then how can I provide evidence against god if no method to investigate god exists?
How can atheism be a negative hypothesis under these scenarios?
quote:
You can't hold a negative position to an unevidenced assertion.
Bingo.
I don't think you meant it like that Onfire; I think you're trying to make a case for atheism as "the negative hypothesis" being nonsensical. What I think you've really done, though, is shown why the rational position for belief in a god or anything else with no empirical evidence for or against is some degree of true skepticism or atheism. An "unevidenced assertion" is just that, so anyone who feels certain about it either negatively or positively, without any evidence on which to base their beliefs, is being irrational . . . or pseudoskeptical.
quote:
So lets see if I can follow the logic here.
(1) There is no method (currently) to directly investigate god.
(2) I am asked to provide evidence against god.
(3) I ask for the method to investigate it so that I may give evidence against it.
(4) I am told no method exists (currently).
2) You are only asked to provide evidence against god if you hold a firm belief that god does not exist. IMO that would be the correct skeptical position to take.
Skepticism:
quote:
Main Entry: skepticism
Pronunciation: \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
synonyms see uncertainty
Note that while doubt is part of skepticism, the operative word in these definitions is uncertainty. The closer you get to Dawkins' 1 or 7, the more certain you are, hence the less skeptical. Placing oneself at 1 or 2, or 6 or 7, is therefore a peudoskeptical position, given the lack of evidence.
3&4 above, if there is no known empirical method which can be used to investigate whether or not god exists, then it can't be done. That's not the same as saying that by default he/she/it doesn't exist. There are some non-empirical methods you could try if you wanted to. You could investigate anecdotal claims. You could "try out" some kind of faith for yourself and see where it took you, whether it gave you some interesting experiences. You could meditate.
quote:
But (currently) I am not holding to a negative position, because there is nothing to hold a negative position towards.
Since the negative position is atheism, that presumably means you are an agnostic.
quote:
your premise has no supporting evidence.
I think you, like several others here, seem to be making the mistake that I am a theist; correct me if I've misunderstood you.
My position in this thread is that anyone who holds some certainty about god existing or not existing should, in order to be truly skeptical and rational, be able to provide some evidence for the positive or the negative claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by onifre, posted 09-29-2009 8:51 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by onifre, posted 09-29-2009 1:37 PM Kitsune has replied
 Message 334 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 10:49 PM Kitsune has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 262 of 562 (526777)
09-29-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Kitsune
09-28-2009 9:43 AM


LindaLou responds to me:
quote:
Please prove to me that this stance is any less valid than "people make stuff up so all theistic beliefs are made up."
Since that isn't what I was trying to claim, you'll forgive me if I don't comply.
Instead, my point is that since we know that people make stuff up, it is the burden of the one claiming that an object exists to show that it does, not the ones claiming that it does not.
The null hypothesis is always true until shown otherwise.
quote:
Firstly, the topic of this thread is pseudoskepticism; that is, assuming that the negative (or null) hypothesis is correct without recognising an obligation to provide evidence for this assumption.
So basically, we're throwing all of logic out the window because somebody doesn't like the implications it has for his theology? The null hypothesis is always considered true until shown otherwise. That is simply the nature of the beast. That's why it's called "burden of proof." It is always on the one making the claim. Existence is a claim. Non-existence is the status quo.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote:
Secondly, it would seem to me that we are all able to talk about something called spirituality, without getting into semantic misunderstandings. We may not agree on what that is but if we had no concept of it at all then we'd have difficulty using the word.
Clearly, we aren't able to and we do have difficulty. Isn't that indicative of something?
quote:
quote:
There's a reason that the null hypothesis (what you are trying to show isn't true) is the default position. The default position is always that the thing that is claimed to exist actually doesn't.
But this isn't how the scientific methods works, is it?
(*blink!*)
That is preicsely how science works. The entire point is to find evidence for that which you are looking for because chances are you're wrong.
quote:
You don't design an experiment thinking, "I don't think this thing I'm (or you're) looking for actually exists."
Yes, you do. That's why you design the experiment and establish controls: To start excluding things that we know exist to see if there is something else going on and the nature of it. You have to establish that the chocolate sprinkles are required.
quote:
The only way to avoid confirmation bias is to keep an open mind -- that is, to be as agnostic as possible.
Incorrect. The only way to avoid confirmation bias is to be as negative as possible: That is, to demand that evidence be presented that shows the existence of something since the null hypothesis that it isn't there is true by default.
quote:
There are serious, well-qualified scientists out there doing research into the paranormal
And they have yet to establish even the existence of something unusual going on let alone a mechanism for how it might happen.
quote:
How is it any different to insist that the idea of a god is patently absurd without appropriate evidence to back up the claim?
Because the model works. Why do you insist on chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that more is required?
quote:
How are we to avoid situations like this ourselves, if we declare that the appropriate stance to take is "I won't believe it until you prove it to me?"
Because you check the model to see if it works. That's how you learn things. When you simply assume that disease is caused by demons without actually doing any investigation with controls to determine if they are there, you get people thinking that ghosts and spirits are all around us.

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2009 9:43 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 10:56 AM Rrhain has replied

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


(1)
Message 263 of 562 (526782)
09-29-2009 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by bluegenes
09-29-2009 9:20 AM


Re: Only 100%, not more, please!!
Hi Bluegenes,
It seems to me like the guesses of "likelihood" in your post are based on some kind of personal incredulity factor. If you are as neutral as possible about any of these ideas, then when there is truly a lack of empirical evidence, I'd have to ask why you felt so sure that one idea was silly and one was not, or whether one was slightly sillier than the other. As we know from debating creationists, arguments from incredulity are not accepted as logical debate strategies.
quote:
If you're 50/50 on any two of them, there's no room left for anything else.
The only rational position for any of these, Last Thursdayism or whatever, is truly "I don't know." It's impossible for me to prove that the universe was not created last Thursday. I'm not sitting here laughing off the idea as silly or impossible; it's an interesting philosophical point. But its truth or falsehood don't bother me because it makes no difference to my life or anyone else's.
Because we don't know if any of those ideas are true, and there is no evidence, then the only reason we'd pick one as being more or less likely than the other is because we prefer it for some reason, which is not logical or scientific.
quote:
they're several of an infinite field of mutually exclusive evidenceless possibilities that all have to be regarded as equally unlikely.
Correct, until (and if) some empirical evidence comes to light -- though you could equally replace the word "unlikely" with "likely" or better still, "possible". Problem with that?
quote:
If you decide that one god creating the universe is more likely than ten goddesses or fifty elves doing so, you will have no evidence to support your view, and that would make you a pseudo-skeptic
Yes, which is why I'd remain agnostic about the divine origins of the universe until (and if) some empirical evidence came to light. I might decide to take some ideas on faith but I'd be aware that my faith was not supported by empirical evidence either.
quote:
When atheists describe a specific god proposition as extremely unlikely, they can do so confidently, because of the infinite range of competing equally evidenceless alternatives!
Which brings us back to my first point. Where no empirical evidence exists, it's rather nonsensical to talk about "likelihood" because that implies you are using some kind of evidence to judge one premise against another, and that evidence doesn't exist; instead, you are relying on your personal belief factors.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2009 9:20 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2009 10:47 AM Kitsune has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 264 of 562 (526785)
09-29-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2009 4:55 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
this thread has it defined in the exact opposite way you are using it.
That's because we're denying RAZD's definition. Skepticism is acceptance of the null hypothesis until shown otherwise.

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2009 4:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:19 AM Rrhain has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 265 of 562 (526798)
09-29-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by onifre
09-28-2009 8:17 PM


Re: finally, a description
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.
Then you're not a psuedoskeptic...
and that sure sounds like agnosticism to me (at least in the way I use the word).
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.
I heard a strange noise in the back yard last night. I was gonna go look to see what it was but because I didn't have any objective evidence I concluded that I made it up
But as you can see by my reply to the source above, I'm not an atheist to your personal, experienced, speculated "god."
Then you don't qualify for psuedoskepticism.
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.
The whole point is that there isn't an assumption either way... that agnosticism is the default.
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.
That's agnosticism, not atheism.
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.
That's just not the way I use the word, but I don't really care enough to argue over what words mean.
I don't think you're really arguing against the position in the OP, nor do you qualify as the psuedoskeptic that its against. I think you're using the terminology differently enough to think that you are when you aren't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by onifre, posted 09-28-2009 8:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 307 by onifre, posted 09-29-2009 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 266 of 562 (526801)
09-29-2009 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Rrhain
09-29-2009 9:56 AM


Oh god
That's because we're denying RAZD's definition. Skepticism is acceptance of the null hypothesis until shown otherwise.
I remember that you like to make up your own definitions for words, like bigotry. I'm not really in the mood for that bullshit.
If you're not going to use the definitions set out in the OP then GTFO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2009 9:56 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2009 6:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 335 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 10:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 341 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2009 3:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(2)
Message 267 of 562 (526802)
09-29-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 8:57 AM


Re: Example Please - Shining Beacon of Negativity Required
Straggler, I want to have a productive conversation with you. Honestly, I do.
Then try actually explicitly answering questions rather than evading them all the time.
But for the upteenth time all I see is that you are misunderstanding or ignoring most of what I say to you. Maybe it really is cognitive dissonance, I don't know.
Maybe it is that your position is unjustifiable under scrutiny and questioning? I think this is highly likely.
I'm not going to keep repeating everything to you because lots of other people want to challenge me here.
I wish them luck geting any explicit answers out of you.
If you can demonstrate at some point that you have read what I've written and understand it, I'll be happy to take the conversation back up.
Pots kettles and black all spring to mind. You don't answer questions because you cannot and then you tell me that I am at fault for not understanding your position. I know what your position is. I am just asking you to justify it. With that in mind here are some questions that you have never explicitly answered:
  • Are you still claiming that atheism equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"?
  • Are you still claiming that "50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism is the default position for any wholly objectively unevidenced claim?
  • Can you explain to me why you are not a "pseudoskeptic" in relation to immaterial toilet goblins despite the fact you can offer no evidence as to their non-existence other than evidence in favour of them having been made-up? Which strangely is exactly the same as my position with regard to gods and deities.
    I won't hold my breath.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 258 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 8:57 AM Kitsune has not replied

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


    (2)
    Message 268 of 562 (526805)
    09-29-2009 10:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 265 by New Cat's Eye
    09-29-2009 10:16 AM


    Re: finally, a description
    I heard a strange noise in the back yard last night. I was gonna go look to see what it was but because I didn't have any objective evidence I concluded that I made it up
    Then that was a silly conclusion. I assume that your backyard is objectively evidenced rather than "something" only ever expereinced subjectively by you? I also assume that you have objective evidence that your sense of hearing works. I am also pretty sure that real things making noises in real backyards is a fairly well defined phenomenon.
    Perhaps a better anology would be if you had a back yard that nobody else could empirically detect and that you were also stone deaf. Then if you heard something in your backyard I would be wholly justified in my atheism towards whatever you attribute that "noise" to surely?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 269 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:39 AM Straggler has replied

    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    (1)
    Message 269 of 562 (526809)
    09-29-2009 10:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 268 by Straggler
    09-29-2009 10:29 AM


    Re: finally, a description
    Then that was a silly conclusion.
    That was my point.
    I assume that your backyard is objectively evidenced rather than "something" only ever expereinced subjectively by you?
    How do I know?
    Perhaps a better anology would be if you had a back yard that nobody else could empirically detect and that you were also stone deaf. Then if you heard something in your backyard I would be wholly justified in my atheism towards whatever you attribute that "noise" to surely?
    But we just don't know, do we?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 268 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 10:29 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 273 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
     Message 294 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
     Message 342 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2009 4:09 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    bluegenes
    Member (Idle past 2477 days)
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007


    Message 270 of 562 (526814)
    09-29-2009 10:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 263 by Kitsune
    09-29-2009 9:52 AM


    Re: Only 100%, not more, please!!
    Hi Linda
    LindaLou writes:
    The only rational position for any of these, Last Thursdayism or whatever, is truly "I don't know." It's impossible for me to prove that the universe was not created last Thursday. I'm not sitting here laughing off the idea as silly or impossible; it's an interesting philosophical point. But its truth or falsehood don't bother me because it makes no difference to my life or anyone else's.
    Because we don't know if any of those ideas are true, and there is no evidence, then the only reason we'd pick one as being more or less likely than the other is because we prefer it for some reason, which is not logical or scientific.
    That last point about picking one over the other not being scientific is correct. So, what's the argument against last Thursdayism? It's what I say here:
    bluegenes writes:
    they're several of an infinite field of mutually exclusive evidenceless possibilities that all have to be regarded as equally unlikely.
    And you reply:
    LindaLou writes:
    Correct, until (and if) some empirical evidence comes to light -- though you could equally replace the word "unlikely" with "likely" or better still, "possible". Problem with that?
    No problem. Remember, all the propositions have equal evidential support (zero evidence) and there are more than a trillion that we could make. So, don't you agree that unlikely sounds better, although the meaning's the same with all three words.
    Then:
    bluegenes writes:
    When atheists describe a specific god proposition as extremely unlikely, they can do so confidently, because of the infinite range of competing equally evidenceless alternatives!
    Linda writes:
    Which brings us back to my first point. Where no empirical evidence exists, it's rather nonsensical to talk about "likelihood" because that implies you are using some kind of evidence to judge one premise against another, and that evidence doesn't exist; instead, you are relying on your personal belief factors.
    No. I thought you were getting there, and you're near. It's the opposite. There is no evidence, so, the proposition that the universe was created by one billion gods and the proposition that it was created by one god are equally likely/unlikely, and it's less than a 1 in a billion chance for each.
    If you brought in subjective cultural factors, you might come out with one god being more likely than any other number as you're from a monotheistic culture, but there's certainly no reason to do so, so you'd be practicing culturally induced pseudo-skepticism!
    Now, I'll try to explain why you're wrong when you see people moving from 4 up to 6 on the Dawkins scale as being less agnostic in their attitude. If you're a "4" for "god" singular, and a "4" for the proposition of 2 creator gods, you have to be "7" for all propositions of three gods and above and for all other origins propositions. Definitely pseudo-skeptical.
    So, think about it, and the true agnostic is an atheist/agnostic at 6 when it comes to all specific propositions on ultimate origins. You can't prioritize any of the evidenceless propositions over others. So, it's always "I cannot know, but it's extremely unlikely", whether for seven goddesses creating the universe, or teams of elves, or whatever.
    You can dismiss things like non-omphalistic young earth creationism on the evidence, obviously. But I'm talking about all propositions that would fit the universe as science perceives it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 263 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 9:52 AM Kitsune has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 278 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 11:18 AM bluegenes has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024