Pseudoskepticism and logic

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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'. 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. 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).

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Don't quite get what you're saying there.

quote:

---

skep⋅tic [skep-tik]
—noun
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

​

2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

​

3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

---

Then consider me to be taking the word back from those who misuse it.

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? 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.

IMMA combine replies...From Message 285: Thus pseudoskepticism. You fit the definition well.From Message 287Sure, so where's the evidence to determine the likelyhood that god is made-up?

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? 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. 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

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. 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. 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.

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.

I didn't mean that kind of "know". I meant, how could I tell? 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? Yeah, because you must argue against a non-ballpark in order to have your point.

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.

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.

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. Oh are we talking about material and empirically detectable gods now? 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.

Nuh-uh!