Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 271 of 562 (526816)
09-29-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Otto Tellick
09-29-2009 3:10 AM


Re: Moderation may be needed to keep on the topic
The problem is that what RAZD is claiming is complete nonsense. Lets look at this quote:
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.
Suppose you are packing for a trip, and your significant other asks you if you should pack a wrench. You are momentarily confused as there appears to be no reason to bring a wrench, as you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip. It seems completely unnecessary.
The problem is that when you point out "I don't see any reason to bring that along," if the response is "But you have not given any reason not to bring it along,". In this example the reasons for not packing a wrench in your overnight bag may be slim, but the point is where you are starting from.
Things don't have a 50/50 chance of being packed in your overnight bag until you consider them and weigh the pros and cons, the default position is not packing something unless you have a reason. That is the same mentality I am applying toward claims of reality: I don't believe something exists without a good reason.
RAZD appears to be taking the position that, not knowing a particular pro or con for bringing the wrench, he should freeze in indecision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-29-2009 3:10 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 11:08 AM Phage0070 has replied

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


(1)
Message 272 of 562 (526819)
09-29-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Rrhain
09-29-2009 9:39 AM


The negative hypothesis is not the rational default
Hi Rrhain,
quote:
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.
And yet something can be true or real but unprovable, which in your scenario above will be taken by everyone as being no different from imagination, hallucination, etc. To answer the question "Is there a god?" you seem to be saying, "People make stuff up, therefore I'm going to believe that God is made up until it's proved otherwise." But the converse of this can also logically apply: "People routinely don't make stuff up, therefore I'm going to accept that they are not making God up until it's proved otherwise." I don't see any reason why the former should be preferred over the later, apart from personal incredulity.
quote:
The null hypothesis is always true until shown otherwise.
Who says, apart from you? This goes against everything I've learned about science since elementary school. If you are invested in a certain outcome of an experiment, e.g. by believing that it will not produce a positive outcome, then you have confirmation bias. You seem to be confusing objectivity and neutrality with active doubt. This is just as counterproductive as conducting an experiment where you really, really hope you get a certain outcome. I'm sure this can be hard for some scientists to avoid when it's their life's work, but it's what they have to do in order to be open to results that might be surprising or disappointing but valid.
Here is what one scientist says about skepticism in science:
Source
quote:
I am skeptical of people who believe they know what is possible and what is not. This belief leads to dogmatism, and to the dismissal of ideas and evidence that do not fit in. Genuine skepticism involves an attitude of open-minded enquiry into what we do not understand, and this is the approach I try to follow.
Whether you personally like what this scientist researches is immaterial. If you believe that the negative hypothesis should be the default position in science, then "this belief leads to dogmatism, and to the dismissal of ideas and evidence that do not fit in." In other words, it becomes acceptable to dismiss a new idea with nothing more than, "Everyone knows that's ridiculous," with no obligation to prove that this is actually the case. Do you think that's what science should be about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2009 9:39 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:12 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 344 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2009 5:14 AM Kitsune has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 562 (526823)
09-29-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 10:39 AM


Re: finally, a description
Catholic Scientist writes:
But we just don't know, do we?
Only if we consider you utterly incompetent when compared to the rest of the human race. We have evidence that other people can hear and usually are accurate in what they hear, but you appear to be a liar whenever it benefits you. If we consider you wholly unreliable and dishonest, then it would be reasonable to ignore anything you claim no matter its possibility of being true.
Shall we begin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 11:13 AM Phage0070 has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 274 of 562 (526824)
09-29-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Phage0070
09-29-2009 10:51 AM


Suppose you are packing for a trip, and your significant other asks you if you should pack a wrench.
My reply would be: "I don't know."
RAZD appears to be taking the position that, not knowing a particular pro or con for bringing the wrench, he should freeze in indecision.
Right, you are in a position of not knowing until further evidence comes along.
You are momentarily confused as there appears to be no reason to bring a wrench, as you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip. It seems completely unnecessary.
Okay, so there's our con evidence which changes our answer to: "No, significant other, we should not pack a wrench."
The problem is that when you point out "I don't see any reason to bring that along," if the response is "But you have not given any reason not to bring it along,". In this example the reasons for not packing a wrench in your overnight bag may be slim, but the point is where you are starting from.
The reasons were: "you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip" and "It seems completely unnecessary".
Things don't have a 50/50 chance of being packed in your overnight bag until you consider them and weigh the pros and cons, the default position is not packing something unless you have a reason.
I think the default position is not knowing if you're going to pack something until you decide if you need it or not.
That is the same mentality I am applying toward claims of reality: I don't believe something exists without a good reason.
Then you're a psuedoskeptic, as defined by the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 10:51 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:17 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 562 (526825)
09-29-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 10:56 AM


Re: The negative hypothesis is not the rational default
LindaLou writes:
Who says, apart from you?
I say it as well. "Invested" is not the same as holding to the null in the absence of evidence; your elementary education would have been better served differentiating such concepts.
LindaLou writes:
In other words, it becomes acceptable to dismiss a new idea with nothing more than, "Everyone knows that's ridiculous," with no obligation to prove that this is actually the case. Do you think that's what science should be about?
No, it becomes acceptable to dismiss a new idea with nothing more than "You have no evidence to support that idea,". YES, that is what science should be about!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 10:56 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 11:35 AM Phage0070 has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 276 of 562 (526826)
09-29-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Phage0070
09-29-2009 11:07 AM


Re: finally, a description
Catholic Scientist writes:
But we just don't know, do we?
Only if we consider you utterly incompetent when compared to the rest of the human race. We have evidence that other people can hear and usually are accurate in what they hear,
Oh okay. So if it was a voice and it said: "I am god and I exist".
Now how competent would I be?
but you appear to be a liar whenever it benefits you.
Oh, so you have evidence that I have, in fact, lied eh?
If we consider you wholly unreliable and dishonest, then it would be reasonable to ignore anything you claim no matter its possibility of being true.
You've jumped to the conclusion that I'm unreliable and dishonest so you're unreasonably ignoring anything I claim.
Shall we begin?
Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:07 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 562 (526827)
09-29-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 11:08 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
The reasons were: "you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip" and "It seems completely unnecessary".
So tell me why "I don't see any reason to hold a theistic position without evidence," is any different.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I think the default position is not knowing if you're going to pack something until you decide if you need it or not.
Then you never leave the room, and the bag never gets packed.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then you're a psuedoskeptic, as defined by the OP.
No, I am simply rejecting a hypothesis as a true skeptic would. You seem to be equating the null hypothesis with a claim, which is not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 11:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 11:39 AM Phage0070 has replied

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


(1)
Message 278 of 562 (526828)
09-29-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by bluegenes
09-29-2009 10:47 AM


Re: Only 100%, not more, please!!
Hi Bluegenes,
I think I see what you're trying to say. So if I decided to pick one way that I believed the universe had come into existence, I would be excluding all other ways, which means that the probability of my choice would be infinitely small compared to the infinite number of other choices available.
On the face of it, it sounds all mathematical and logical. But when we look at something specific like the origins of the universe, there aren't that many possible causes that I can conceive of. Either it happened by chance as part of the natural processes of reality, or it happened through the operation of some conscious power. We can choose to call that hypothetical conscious power "God", a kernel of which exists in all the different expressions of theism that humankind has believed in. By this logic, we get a 50/50 chance that there is a god that created the universe, and we don't have to worry about whether it is a literal Zeus or Vishnu or Allah. But I personally think that all these odds are heavily dependent anyway on how we form these little scenarios, and they don't mean much.
If my daughter claimed that she'd seen fairies in our garden, I don't know how I'd make up odds for that. It's immaterial. I know that children are particularly imaginative and prone to making things up but I also know that I can't prove fairies don't exist. I'm agnostic on the matter and I don't think it's doing either me or my daughter any harm.
quote:
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.
This isn't really any different from saying, "I believe in the God of the Bible and I can prove why this God and no other Gods exist." No one can rationally do that. More evidence for the purely agnostic position to be the default one until more evidence comes to light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2009 10:47 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2009 11:57 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 301 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2009 12:54 PM Kitsune has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 562 (526829)
09-29-2009 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 11:13 AM


Re: finally, a description
Catholic Scientist writes:
Oh okay. So if it was a voice and it said: "I am god and I exist".
Now how competent would I be?
Then, if it came from the back yard we would reasonably check the back yard. When you suggest to check "heaven", you start to lose credibility.
Catholic Scientist writes:
You've jumped to the conclusion that I'm unreliable and dishonest so you're unreasonably ignoring anything I claim.
You are the person who concluded we couldn't know about the truth of an objective phenomenon you claim to have witnessed. I just provided a possible explanation for such a thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 11:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 11:43 AM Phage0070 has replied

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


(1)
Message 280 of 562 (526833)
09-29-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Phage0070
09-29-2009 11:12 AM


Re: The negative hypothesis is not the rational default
quote:
I say it as well. "Invested" is not the same as holding to the null in the absence of evidence; your elementary education would have been better served differentiating such concepts.
Being invested in the outcome of an experiment is positive confirmation bias. Actively doubting the future results of an experiment or study is negative confirmation bias. There are some fields of research where negative experimenter bias can easily interfere with results. I'm finding it hard to believe that people are arguing with me here against neutrality/agnosticism as being the best state of mind for achieving accurate experimental results.
quote:
No, it becomes acceptable to dismiss a new idea with nothing more than "You have no evidence to support that idea,". YES, that is what science should be about!
Sure, but inherent in this are two possible attitudes:
a) "I will believe this is incorrect/nonexistent until I see some evidence."
b) "I will remain undecided until I see some evidence."
Now before you or anyone else has more fun with making up silly situations, we're talking about instances where there is little or no evidence to go on. If a stranger walked up to me and claimed that they'd just seen a diplodocus walking through the park, I would not say "I will remain undecided until I see some evidence" because I know that:
-- The fossil record shows that diplodocus went extinct millions of years ago (unless you credit something like the Loch Ness Monster), and people don't tend to see them walking through parks today;
-- I don't know this person and they could be schizophrenic or on drugs;
-- Someone could be trying to play a stupid joke.
By my own terms I would have to leave room for a little doubt in case this person had had some kind of extraordinary vision, but the empirical evidence strongly suggests that's not the case. When we look at something like theism then there is much less evidence either way, which is why the agnostic position is IMO the rational one.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:12 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:45 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 284 by greyseal, posted 09-29-2009 11:47 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 345 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2009 5:47 AM Kitsune has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 281 of 562 (526835)
09-29-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Phage0070
09-29-2009 11:17 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
The reasons were: "you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip" and "It seems completely unnecessary".
So tell me why "I don't see any reason to hold a theistic position without evidence," is any different.
Its not. And that fits within agnosticism. But this thread is about atheism that is, not simply withholding a theistic position but, holding the position that god does not exist.
In other words, your saying that we don't need to bring a wrench, to which a proper reponse would be: "why not?"
Catholic Scientist writes:
I think the default position is not knowing if you're going to pack something until you decide if you need it or not.
Then you never leave the room, and the bag never gets packed.
Sure you would. You'd decide on what needs to be packed and what doesn't.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then you're a psuedoskeptic, as defined by the OP.
No, I am simply rejecting a hypothesis as a true skeptic would.
Then by what evidence are you rejecting the hypothesis? A true skeptic doesn't reject it because of a lack of evidence, at that point they remain at the position of not knowing.
You seem to be equating the null hypothesis with a claim, which is not the case.
A null hypothesis is for stats and it contrasts against another hypothesis. It doesn't fit within the scope of this thread, in which atheism is a claim that god does not exists and unless it is supported by evidence, then the person holding the claim is a psuedoskeptic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:17 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:51 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 282 of 562 (526836)
09-29-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Phage0070
09-29-2009 11:23 AM


Re: finally, a description
Catholic Scientist writes:
Oh okay. So if it was a voice and it said: "I am god and I exist".
Now how competent would I be?
Then, if it came from the back yard we would reasonably check the back yard. When you suggest to check "heaven", you start to lose credibility.
I haven't suggested heaven....
Catholic Scientist writes:
You've jumped to the conclusion that I'm unreliable and dishonest so you're unreasonably ignoring anything I claim.
You are the person who concluded we couldn't know about the truth of an objective phenomenon you claim to have witnessed. I just provided a possible explanation for such a thing.
No, I was suggesting that you couldn't know it was an objective phenomenon or not and that concluding that I made it up because we don't know that it was objective is unreasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:23 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Phage0070, posted 09-29-2009 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 562 (526838)
09-29-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 11:35 AM


Re: The negative hypothesis is not the rational default
LindaLou writes:
Actively doubting the future results of an experiment or study is negative confirmation bias.
Doubt is part of being a skeptic, get used to it. Or, good luck being a skeptic without it...
Doubt alone does not negatively affect the outcome of any experiment, and is indeed the reason why experimentation is done. We learn from experiments because we do not know what the outcome will be; therefore, we *doubt* the outcome.
LindaLou writes:
By my own terms I would have to leave room for a little doubt in case this person had had some kind of extraordinary vision,
Attitude "a" still allows for evidence to be presented, and in this case it would be reasonable to go check the park for dinosaurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 11:35 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 11:54 AM Phage0070 has replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 284 of 562 (526840)
09-29-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 11:35 AM


Re: The negative hypothesis is not the rational default
Well, I think you're right, but your reasoning is slightly flawed.
It's the "teapot orbiting mars" conundrum - you could easily SAY that there is a teapot too small for the most powerful telescopes and equipment to detect orbiting mars, but you cannot prove it. You also cannot prove there isn't.
In this case, the rational viewpoint would be to say that it doesn't exist, but you would still say yes, it is possible.
Atheists give the chance of god (given his/her apparent lack of presence in the world) is as likely (or less) than the teapot - i.e. everything works so exceptionally well *without* god that the evidence (of no interference) is so great that the logical position is that there is no god.
of course, even the hardest skeptic would say it's possible, but that's nonsensical to assume it's true just because it may be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 11:35 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 11:59 AM greyseal has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 562 (526842)
09-29-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 11:39 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
In other words, your saying that we don't need to bring a wrench, to which a proper reponse would be: "why not?"
To which the response would be: "Because I don't see a reason to pack it, and my default position is to not pack things."
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sure you would. You'd decide on what needs to be packed and what doesn't.
On what criteria would you base this decision? You cannot know if you will need the wrench, but you cannot be sure you will not. You simply don't have any reason that you should bring it. So what do you do, and why?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then by what evidence are you rejecting the hypothesis?
By the evidence that it lacks any evidence to support it. Note that I am not claiming it is incorrect, I am simply rejecting it until such time as it supports its claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye 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