|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pseudoskepticism and logic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4330 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
quote: If the word "doubt" were removed from your statements and replaced with "uncertainty" then I would agree. If you doubt someone's belief that a god does or does not exist, you are moving from certainty to uncertainty. If you doubt the existence of a god, then you are moving toward atheism rather than agnosticism. I think the negative connotations of the word can cause problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then, having checked wherever you think it came from and finding nothing, we would conclude that either the whisperer escaped detection or you made it up. The circumstances of the claimed message would determine the likelihood assigned to each possibility.
I haven't suggested heaven....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Either it happened by chance as part of the natural processes of reality, or it happened through the operation of some conscious power. If God exists, then he is a natural process of reality. And if it happens as part of the natural processes or reality, that doesn't necessarily imply 'chance'.
By this logic, we get a 50/50 chance that there is a god that created the universe No, by this logic we get a 100% chance that the universe happened by the processes that are 'natural' to reality. The question then becomes 'what processes specifically?' If you propose some entity or process for which we have no evidence and which cannot be tested in any way, the chances are you've proposed wrongly. It is possible you are right, but not likely.
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 wouldn't rule it out, but I would find it unlikely that the memory she has of her visual experience was as a result of actually experiencing an actual fairy entity if that fairy entity was unverifiable independently of human vision. (If by 'fairy' she meant 'a picture of a fairy' or the like, then we have a different claim altogether).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4330 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
quote: Maybe this example is slightly flawed? We have some empirical evidence available here. We know that human beings make teapots; they do not occur naturally. We know that human beings have not been to Mars. Therefore it is highly unlikely that there is a teapot orbiting Mars. But no, I can't prove that there isn't. I don't expect that the uncertainty will keep me awake at night.
quote: Don't quite get what you're saying there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
LindaLou writes:
I think the negative connotations of the word can cause problems.quote:Then consider me to be taking the word back from those who misuse it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3891 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Maybe this example is slightly flawed? Nope, I think it's pretty accurate. Where teapots come from has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a teapot orbiting Mars. You cannot prove there is not one. Therefore I ask you, do you believe there is?
Don't quite get what you're saying there. Hmm, I thought it was obvious and straightforward... If your default position is "maybe, maybe not" then you fill your world with maybe's. Maybe there's a teapot orbiting mars.Maybe there's a boogeyman under your bed Maybe ghosts exist, you just haven't seen one Maybe pink unicorns are real Maybe, maybe, maybe... Somebody who says you MUST believe it if you can't prove IT IS NOT would be forced to admit there must be all of those things. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think that we need to fill our world with maybe's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
IMMA combine replies...
From Message 285:
my default position is to not pack things. Catholic Scientist writes:
By the evidence that it lacks any evidence to support it. Then by what evidence are you rejecting the hypothesis? Thus pseudoskepticism. You fit the definition well. From Message 287 Then, having checked wherever you think it came from and finding nothing, we would conclude that either the whisperer escaped detection or you made it up. The circumstances of the claimed message would determine the likelihood assigned to each possibility. Sure, so where's the evidence to determine the likelyhood that god is made-up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
LindaLou writes: Stile writes: 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. You claim there is a difference? What, specifically, is the difference between an idea that "is made up" and one that "cannot be differentiated from the human imagination?" Especially since I can just say "Actually, maybe someone's just saying it's made up when it actually isn't" and then they are exactly the same. Or, if you'd like, sometimes "known to be made-up" things are actually real. Like black holes. They were imagined and made up by science-fiction writers and it turns out that they actually exist in reality. So what, specifically, is this difference you're talking about?
LindaLou writes: Some respond to the IPU with, "But that's just silly and we all know it." Why doesn't that wash with you guys? I'm not sure what you mean. That response washes perfectly with me. In exactly the same way as how the response of "but your concept of The Christian Bible God is just silly and we all know it" is also acceptable to me. Or how the response of "but alternative medicine is just a bunch of bullshit and we all know it" also washes with me. I think the problem of responses "washing with you" in a consistend manner is on your end.
LindaLou writes: 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? The problem isn't specific circumstances. The problem is one of staying consistent. You are actually right, it is a valid position to be 50/50, but it's not rational unless you are consistent. To be consistent, you must then be 50/50 on ALL evidenceless ideas that cannot be differentiated from imagination. Since you continue to move around, and it's an unevidenced idea that your very next move will immediately lead to your death (regardless of past movements)... then you are being inconsistent by not giving that evidenceless proposition a 50/50 chance. That is not imagination, it very well could happen. I'm not calling your position irrational because it's agnostic. I'm calling your position irrational because it's inconsistent. Atheism isn't rational because it's atheism as opposed to agnosticism. Atheism is rational because it's consistent. With atheism, I can consistently reject all unevidenced propositions, regardless of them being "known to be imagination" or "unknown to be imagination, but there's no difference between it and imagination anyway." Agnosticism is certainly valid (logical). It's just very hard to keep it consistent when dealing with every and all possible non-evidenced ideas that cannot be differentiated from imagination. Do you think that being rational should include staying consistent? Or do you think that picking and choosing when you should act one way and when you should act another based on personal whims for identical situations is somehow "rational?" Edited by Stile, : Finishing touches
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
How do I know? I guess beyond a sort of Descartian "I think therefore I am" (and even that can be justifiably doubted) we don't really know anything. By your all-encompassing definition of agnosticism I think I might be classed as agnostic about everything up to and quite possibly including my own existence.
That was my point. Do you really think that the two questions: Was that a dog I just heard in my back yard?Was that an empirically undetectable entity I just experienced? Are equally objectively (un)evidenced? No claim operates in a vacuum of all objective evidence CS. Dogs, backyards, your ability to hear, even the noises that dogs in backyards make are all heavily objectively evidenced phenomenon. The possibility that you heard a dog in your back yard whilst far from a certainty is an evidenced possibility in a way that claims of the supernatural just are not. The comparison of the two possibilities is frankly silly.
But we just don't know, do we? No we don't know. But the relative likelihood of the two claims isn't even in the same evidential ballpark. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Don't have to provide evidence, the default is that it didn't happen. Perhaps you would be better off debating the justification for that being the default.
Sure, so where's the evidence to determine the likelyhood that god is made-up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
How do I know?
I guess beyond a sort of Descartian "I think therefore I am" (and even that can be justifiably doubted) we don't really know anything. By your definition I think I might be classed as agnostic about everything up to and quite possibly including my own existence.
I didn't mean that kind of "know". I meant, how could I tell?
Do you really think that the two questions: Was that a dog I just heard in my back yard?Was that an empirically undetectable entity I just experienced? Are equally objectively (un)evidenced? No claim operates in a vacuum of all objective evidence CS. Dogs, backyards, your ability to hear, even the noises that dogs in backyards make are all heavily objectively evidenced phenomenon. The possibility that you heard a dog in your back yard whilst far from a certainty is an evidenced possibility in a way that claims of the supernatural just are not. The comparison of the two possibilities is frankly silly. Don't you think its silly that you have to resort to "empirically undetectable entity", something that couldn't have been there in the first place, in order to justify your claim that one is evidently more possible to the other? Doesn't that even suggest to you that your position is flawed? That you have to bust out your favorite tautology, either you could have sense it or you couldn't have sensed it, to make the point?
But we just don't know, do we? No we don't know. But the relative likelihood of the two claims isn't even in the same evidential ballpark. Yeah, because you must argue against a non-ballpark in order to have your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
Don't have to provide evidence, the default is that it didn't happen. Perhaps you would be better off debating the justification for that being the default.
Sure, so where's the evidence to determine the likelyhood that god is made-up? The OP sets up the discussion and we go from there. For the purpose of this discussion, having the default be non-existence is what pseudoskepticism is. True skepticism is agnosticism. If you disagree with the OP, then its up to you to do the justification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
No, pseudoskepticism is making a negative claim without backing it up with evidence. I am just a skeptic that holds a default position you have an issue with.
The OP sets up the discussion and we go from there. For the purpose of this discussion, having the default be non-existence is what pseudoskepticism is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
I didn't mean that kind of "know". I meant, how could I tell? Well you can't explicitly. But do you have a known tendancy for hearing things? Things that either turn out not to be there or that only you and nobody else can hear? If not then I would suggest that you have an objectively evidenced ability to hear that suggests some sembleance of reliability. Albeit imperfect.
Don't you think its silly that you have to resort to "empirically undetectable entity", something that couldn't have been there in the first place, in order to justify your claim that one is evidently more possible to the other? Doesn't that even suggest to you that your position is flawed? That you have to bust out your favorite tautology, either you could have sense it or you couldn't have sensed it, to make the point? Oh are we talking about material and empirically detectable gods now?
Yeah, because you must argue against a non-ballpark in order to have your point. Well do you think a claim that someone heard a dog in their backyard and a claim that someone experienced god are evidentially equivalent? Are they in the same evidential ballpark? It seems obvious to me that they are not but you seem to disagree? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
No, pseudoskepticism is making a negative claim without backing it up with evidence. I am just a skeptic that holds a default position you have an issue with. The OP sets up the discussion and we go from there. For the purpose of this discussion, having the default be non-existence is what pseudoskepticism is. Nuh-uh!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024