Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 331 of 562 (526980)
09-29-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Straggler
09-29-2009 4:15 AM


Re: finally, a description
Good grief you got a description of RAZD's deity out of him!
Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 4:15 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Straggler, posted 10-01-2009 6:33 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 332 of 562 (526982)
09-29-2009 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by bluegenes
09-29-2009 6:45 AM


Re: Theism is a negative position; against nature.
Hi bluegenes, seems like it inevitably raises its head eh?
Indeed. The existence of supernatural beings of all classes cannot be disproved. The true skeptic would regard all evidenceless supernatural propositions as equally unlikely (gods would be no more likely than fairies or Santa's elves). Anyone who broke that rule and claimed skepticism could be described as a pseudo-skeptic.
Zero evidence is zero evidence, and personal desire and/or cultural background shouldn't come into it.
So the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
The true skeptic regards any and all "evidenceless" propositions as neither true nor false, for the simple reason that there is insufficient evidence to conclude pro or con on the issue.
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 247 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2009 6:45 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by bluegenes, posted 09-30-2009 8:58 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 333 of 562 (526986)
09-29-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Stile
09-29-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Your imagination is rational?
Hi Stile, thanks for joining.
Are you sure you want to use the word "rational" in regards to an idea that cannot be differentiated from pure human imagination?
That's a strange definition of the word "rational" you've got there.
Are you claiming that to say "I don't know, I don't have enough information" it is irrational?
The first step is to make sure that what you're talking about isn't pure imagination. Once you do that, then we can start discussing the "rational" possibilities of existence.
Curiously you are claiming that it is "pure imagination" and thus need to support your claim with evidence.
The skeptic would say that they don't know if it is imagination or not.
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 255 by Stile, posted 09-29-2009 8:51 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Stile, posted 09-30-2009 8:41 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 334 of 562 (526989)
09-29-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Agnosticism vs. pseudoskepticism
Hi LindaLou, nice post
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:
Unintended results are always welcome. We also see some people digging trenches of denial, some of them expected.
Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.
Curiously I originally put that last bit together for people like Archangel.
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 261 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 9:34 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2009 6:31 PM 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 335 of 562 (526991)
09-29-2009 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 10:19 AM


Exactly
Hi Catholic Scientist, thanks for the help.
If you're not going to use the definitions set out in the OP then GTFO.
Curiously reminiscent of creationists trying to redefine evolution ... for the same end, the strawman argument.
Change the definition, show that the new definition result in a problem for your belief, and feel that you have somehow reinvented logic.
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 266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(1)
Message 336 of 562 (526995)
09-29-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by onifre
09-29-2009 1:53 PM


how can you have any atheists then
Hi On(ifre), thanks
I'll repeat the matra of those arguing against RAZD, how can one hold a negative position towards nothing?
If you don't know what you don't believe in, then how can there be atheists?
Atheist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
atheist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
That seems pretty general and should be sufficient to cover the question.
For those still unclear on the concept, this is an hypothesis that X does not exist, and it is a negative hypothesis.
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 307 by onifre, posted 09-29-2009 1:53 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Rrhain, posted 09-30-2009 6:37 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 422 by onifre, posted 10-01-2009 4:47 PM 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 337 of 562 (526998)
09-29-2009 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by onifre
09-29-2009 7:27 PM


a minor correction
Hi Onifre
I asked for a specific description from RAZD, we all remember that, even you Straggler seemed astonished to see him actually give one.
RAZD said this:
quote:
"Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things."
You are missing the full quote, reproduced here complete with typo which will go unedited to show that I have not changed the post since 09*27*2009 10:36 PM:
Message 196
No. All I need to show is that the word "god" is a meaningless word (especially when used by a deist) that lacks any description or characteristic.
Deist: god in unknowable, being outside our universe of perception/s or having gone off to do other things.
Onifre: so how do you define god?
Deist: how do you define 42?
Enjoy.
ps - try this for better information on deism today.
So you asked what a deist would say, and I gave you an answer AND then told you where it came from. Unfortunately that page no longer displays.
Further discussion is offtopic.
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 325 by onifre, posted 09-29-2009 7:27 PM onifre has not replied

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


(1)
Message 338 of 562 (527002)
09-30-2009 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by onifre
09-28-2009 8:17 PM


Re: finally, a description
Hi Onifre,
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.
Glad you read the link before it disappeared. There are other similar sites. There seems to be quite a number of us.
Well, that would be why I am an agnostic theist, rather than a strong theist.
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.
Actually I borrowed it from another source, so no, I did not make it up. (see Message 337 for clarification).
But how can anyone have a negative hypothesis toward an unevidenced assertion, RAZD?
You are assuming that the only negative hypothesis is in response to a positive hypothesis, in essence the claim that "no you are wrong" is the only kind of negative hypothesis possible.
There have been several examples of other negative hypothesis presented on this thread, many using arguments provided by YEC creationists, which all demonstrate that the negative exists and it still needs to be justified by the proof or evidence that supports the claim.
For example an extreme antitheist (an 8?) could say:
THERE ARE NO GODS OF ANY KIND
Would you not agree that such a claim needs something more than "people make things up" as substantiation?
The issue gets muddy because we have this spectrum of beliefs from antitheist to fundamentalist fanatic with a lot of ground in between.
We have the red "Strong Atheist" at one end, the green "Pure Agnostic" in the middle and the purple "Strong Theist" at the other end. We also have the yellow blended "Agnostic Atheist" and the blue blended "Agnostic Theist" in between those primary positions.
Where one stops and the next begins is not clear, but the spectrum is not a complete blend, the "Agnostic Atheist" is between two positions, and the cross-over from "Pure Agnostic" to "Strong Atheist" occurs when you consider the negative position more valid than the neutral position, and would claim you are predominantly atheistic perhaps (but not always) with a little agnosticism added.
There needs to be some logical proof or substantiating evidence to cross that line or one falls into the definition of pseudoskeptic in Message 1 or of a false skeptic in Message 4.
Same for the "Agnostic Theist" - however we are interested in the burden of proof for the negative hypothesis\claim on this thread.
Athesim is not a negative hypothesis, ...
The definition of atheism says otherwise.
... it's just the place where one stand until there is evidence to make you consider moving from there.
That's the definition of agnosticism. Glad you agree that to move away from a neutral position without having evidence to make you go there is unreasonable. Now all we need to do is agree on where that center is.
All the definitions commonly used place that center firmly on agnosticism, in science, and in the rest of the world.
Deist have no evidence to move from that place either, but they do so subjetively.
No evidence? Do we need the merry-go-round of subjective experience/s again? Do we need to re-investigate the numerous experiences of a religious nature that are certainly evidence of something, what is not conclusive.
And we have also seen the similar purely subjective arguments of people trying to defend strong atheism when the best they can justify is Agnostic Atheist because of the similar subjectivity of their evidence.
Sorry, Onifre, I'm done in, bagged, tonight, and clarity of thought needs a fully conscious and aware mind.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : /center

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 227 by onifre, posted 09-28-2009 8:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by onifre, posted 10-01-2009 6:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 339 of 562 (527023)
09-30-2009 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by mike the wiz
09-29-2009 8:36 AM


mike the wiz writes:
quote:
Your post is moot for several logical reasons.
This is what happens when people who don't know logic try to look up words and pretend they understand them.
quote:
First of all the immaterial pink unicorn is KNOWN to be fabricated for the purpose of atheist-argument.
Irrelevant. The relevant properties of the IPU are identical to all other gods proffered. Therefore, if you're going to deny the IPU, then you must necessarily deny all the other gods for the same reason.
quote:
But this also shows that you have no knowledge about composition, and the fallacies of composition.
First evidence that you looked up the term, "fallacy of composition," but you didn't understand it. The fallacy of composition is essentially that the whole is not the same as the parts of which it is made and thus what might be true for one part might not be true for all.
For example: A penny is a small amount of money. A thousand dollars is made up of pennies. Therefore, a thousand dollars is a small amount of money.
What you need to show is where the composition is. Are you saying that god is made up of a bunch of IPUs? All the traits of god are completely fabricated? They were "KNOWN to be fabricated"?
Now, indeed: Simply saying that because the pieces of the definition of "god" is made up indicates that the entire concept of "god" is made up is a logical fallacy of composition. However, if it can be shown that the collection of fabricated traits actually compounds the problem rather than having a different aggregate effect that cannot be achieved by any individual part, then we have shown that the collection is also a completely fabricated concept.
For example, we have people who claim that evolution cannot produce an "increase in information." They insist that a gene sequence going from "a" to "aa" is not an "increase in information." They also insist that "a" to "b" is not an "increase in information." But, they claim that "a" to "ab" would be an "increase in information."
Thus, a gene shift from "a" to "aa" to "ab" would be an "increase in information" through two individual steps that aren't. This is their "fallacy of composition" as they are failing to take into account aggregate effects.
But on the flip side: No matter how many times I deal cards, I'm never going to come up with Yahtzee. All the cards in the world will not turn them into dice.
If you are going to claim a fallacy of composition, then you're going to have to define what those parts are and how the collection of parts contains aggregate properties not contained by any individual part.
quote:
and also it is the fallacy of the undistributed middle term.
Second evidence that you looked it up but didn't understand it.
The "fallacy of the undistributed middle" is a syllogistic error of the type:
All A are X.
All B are X (or: B is an X)
Therefore, all A are B (or: B is an A)
In a specific sense: All San Diegans are Californians. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Californian. Therefore, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a San Diegan.
However, you haven't defined what the middle term is. You haven't even shown what the syllogistic argument is.
quote:
What this shallow view actually shows us is the immaturity of those that have never had a faith, because they can only conflate faith with shallow concepts known for their silliness.
You do realize that the overwhelming majority of atheists were once theists, yes? Many of the atheists here have gone into detail about their previous theology and the process by which they changed their minds. Therefore, your claim of "never had a faith" is shown to be false by simple inspection.
And since you do know this, your claim of "never had a faith" is not only disingenuous at best, it is downright rude.
quote:
Have you nothing better than the same regurgitated ad nauseam argument
As soon as RAZD deigns to answer the questions put to him, they will stop being asked. So long as he avoids all such questions with the pathetic whine of "off-topic!" we will keep spinning this merry-go-round.
quote:
Do you really think someone as intelligent as RAZD will not see the many errors in such childish, sneering comments?
He keeps bringing up the same argument in new threads and keeps getting slapped down time and again.
The cliche definition of "insane" is to continue to do the same failed thing while expecting to get a different result.
But do you really think shoving your face in his ass and giving it the sloppiest kiss imaginable is an actual argument? That anybody is going to change his mind because you're showing how much of a sycophant you can be?
Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

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 252 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 8:36 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by mike the wiz, posted 10-01-2009 12:23 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 340 of 562 (527025)
09-30-2009 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by mike the wiz
09-29-2009 8:42 AM


mike the wiz responds to Straggler:
quote:
"Evidenced possibility". Wow. Show us some stuff that show us this possibility.
You mean Zeus, Odin, and Amaterasu are all real and not made up?
If these other gods are made up, why should anybody think that yours is any different?
Where is your evidence of chocolate sprinkles?

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 254 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 8:42 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 341 of 562 (527031)
09-30-2009 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 10:19 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
I remember that you like to make up your own definitions for words, like bigotry.
Now that you've waved your dick at me, and I truly am sorry about your penis, shall we get back to the discussion?
quote:
I'm not really in the mood for that bullshit.
Then don't respond. Nobody is forcing you to, are they? Are you trying to tell us something? Is your life in danger?
quote:
If you're not going to use the definitions set out in the OP then GTFO.
Oh, so if I start a thread that defines "Catholic Scientist" as "putz," then nobody is allowed to question it?
Yes, RAZD would like that to be the definition. However, there are people who think that definition to be...what was your word?...ah, yes..."bullshit." Or at the very least, inapplicable to RAZD's pet topic.
By your logic, all somebody has to do is define "evolution" to be "spontaneous generation" in an original post and that would be the end of the discussion. Never mind any evidence that shows such a definition to be wrong. It was in the original post! All hail the original post! Thou shalt not question the original post or risk fire and brimstone in everlasting hell! I guess it's a mortal sin to question the original post.
As I said in my original response to the original post:
If it's just that you want people to claim that the statement, "X does not exist," requires actual justification and evidence, then I doubt you'll have many takers because that is pretty much universally accepted and thus there is nothing to debate. Everybody agrees.
As we have seen from more than 300 posts, clearly RAZD was not asking for just that. As expected, he was simply bringing up a claim that had been shot down in at least two other threads before this one. And we get to spend hundreds of posts watching him flail in the wind. When this thread gets shut down, what's your under/over time for how long it will take him to start up yet another thread on this same topic?
In conclusion, I again apologize to you regarding your penis, but I shall forever reserve the right to call you or anyone else out on your...what was that word of yours again...ah, that's right...
Bullshit.

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 266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 342 of 562 (527033)
09-30-2009 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 10:39 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to Straggler:
quote:
quote:
I assume that your backyard is objectively evidenced rather than "something" only ever expereinced subjectively by you?
How do I know?
Cartesian Doubt? That's your response? Hell, even Descartes dismissed such Doubt. But hey, if you need to go over concepts covered in introductory philosophy, let's start in:
Suppose you were plagued by demons such that all your experiences were actually the result of their controlling of your senses....
quote:
But we just don't know, do we?
As Descartes concluded, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If it is impossible tell the difference between reality and a perfect imitation of that reality under any circumstances, then there is no reason to treat it as anything other than reality.

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 269 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:39 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 343 of 562 (527038)
09-30-2009 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by RAZD
09-29-2009 9:41 PM


1 out of many equally probable possibilities
Hi RAZD,
I appreciate there's lots of posts going on with some overlap on the manner of points being raised, so I'll try and be as brief as I can (!), and to the point.
I think we agree that it is unlikely for someone to draw a creature they could not have encountered or had experience with. I think we also agree that some such creatures could possibly exist - that is we can't rule them out purely on the basis that someone has never verified their existence.
You think that my probability analysis might be entirely subjective and opinion. I'm not sure that is entirely true. If you can find fault with the evidence and reason, I'd be keen to hear it. If you just want to dismiss it as subjective opinion then we have nothing further to discuss.
You suggest that
...the question is not relative to a positive hypothesis, but relative to the neutral position, the "I don't know enough to know" position.
It is my view that anything which is proposed to explain a phenomena but is itself impossible to verify is both unknowable, unknown and unlikely to be true.
Nor do we have actual objective evidence for your postulated counter claims either, so they are also not "bloomin likely" and you are left with both claims in the same uncertainty.
This is not true.
We find a fossil. Here are two possible claims:
1) It is from a previously existing animal
2) An unverifiable and unfalsifiable process or entity (God/Satan/Djinn/the Modulous Lithofication process) created something that for some reason happens to look exactly like the fossil of a previously existing animal.
We have evidence that fossils can occur through the processes described by taphonomy. We don't have (can't have!) any evidence that it is the latter entity/process.
So, it might be 1), or it might be 2) or it might be
3) Some other explanation which is verifiable/falsifiable.
I think the most likely is 1), then 3) then 2).
Now you think we do not have evidence for the counter claims? I think we do. We have evidence that religious experiences can be induced by various neural based events such as temporal lobe epilepsy. There are various cognitive effects that help foster religious beliefs for which we have evidence.
Like the fossil, it is possible that it came about through some unfalsifiable/unverifiable means. Like the fossil, I don't regard this as likely. I would continue my life/my investigations on the assumption that it isn't the case.
If I am ill - I don't assume demons or evils spirits. I think that explanation is highly unlikely and the actions I take to resolve it assume that it is not demons or evil spirits.
If you think that is somehow unreasonable of me, I'd like to hear why.
If you are asking me to do your work for you, then I must conclude that you haven't done it. Sorry you were the one to claim that you had a calculation: I want to see your results. It's your assertion.
I'm not asking you to do the work. I've done that part. I'm asking you for an agreement on a variable. What do you think x is, where x is the number of possible unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypotheses that can explain any given phenomena that is sometimes attributed to 'god'. If x is higher than two, then I submit that it is unlikely that any given person that has picked one such unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypotheses has picked the right one, even if we assume that one such hypothesis is the right one. Granted, if it was as low as three, then I'd expect some people to have picked correctly if there were three or more guessers.
Personally, I feel there are essentially an infinite number of such hypotheses which would leave us with a very low probability of picking the right one. If you feel that x is quite low - and you can explain why you feel that way, then maybe the discussion can advance.
The empirical objective evidence that can be shown to apply to all cases. The calculations, the logically valid conclusions.
No such evidence exists for any claim. We simply have to apply inductive reasoning and 'flavour it' with the principle of fallibilism and the usual disclaimers one makes when engaged in inductive reasoning.
I can however, show that there are some hypotheses for religious experiences that have evidence.
I can show that there are many hypotheses which are unfalsifiable and unverifiable.
I can explain that when you have a pool of many possibilities with no method for discriminate between them, and you pick one such possibility, the chances of you being right are low, even if the correct answer is in the pool.
you seem to be of the opinion that - because something is unfalsifiable or unverifiable - it is more likely to be false than true, no matter what the concept is or whether you have even heard it yet.
Let's put it like this: I am completely agnostic to the point of not commenting when it comes to discussing the possibility of a general unverifiable/unfalsifiable entity or process being responsible for a phenomena. If you asked me if I believed that there was such a thing responsible I'd say, "No.", but that isn't me saying that I believe that such a thing is not responsible.
If you want to tell me that you think you have a good idea which unverifiable/unfalsifiable hypothesis is correct, then I will point out that you can't have any defensible method for making that determination and that the chances of you having chosen correctly is therefore rather low.
Something better than
people make things up
people claim to have religious experiences
therefore all religious experiences are made up
Something better than "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" - something substantial.
I'm fairly sure I have provided the following:
(1)Unfalsifiable/unverfiable entities and processes are many
(2)There is no way, by definition, to sort through the many such entities/processes to see which are more likely than others
Because (2) therefore all of them have an equal probability of being true.
Because (1) the probability of any given hypothesis being true is low (by low I mean many to 1 against).
I went further: There is evidence for other hypotheses that explain the phenomena in question. I am more inclined to think that these other hypotheses, and maybe some others as yet undiscovered, are to be preferred over arbitrarily picking one hypothesis from a sea of hypothetical possibilities.
If you want to remain neutral to these other possibilities, then go right ahead.
If you want to concede it is irrational to believe that one of these possibilities is true due to the lack of evidence, that's fine.
If you want to think my reasons for my position are insufficient or insubstantial, that's ok too.
If you want to debate them, that's great! Some of your objections are fine, but they don't seem to be objections to any position I am advocating. That is probably why there is a lot of repeated points, as people are trying to think of many different ways of essentially saying the same thing because it looks as though you are arguing against a different (though similar looking) position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 9:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2009 11:15 PM Modulous has replied

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


(1)
Message 344 of 562 (527040)
09-30-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 10:56 AM


LindaLou responds to me:
quote:
And yet something can be true or real but unprovable
I never said otherwise (and I assume you mean "not yet provable" rather than "unprovable in any circumstance.") But we're talking about rational responses, not ultimate truth.
As the Red Queen said, "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Just because one of them might actually be possible or even true isn't justification to conclude that there is any hope of reality.
The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
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."
Incorrect. What I am actually saying is, "People make stuff up and so far, all descriptions of god that have been given appear to all intents and purposes to have been made up. Therefore, what on earth could possibly be the justification to think that this next one is any different? Especially when there is no evidence for it?"
The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
quote:
The null hypothesis is always true until shown otherwise.
Who says, apart from you?
Mathematics. Have you studied mathematics?
An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Applications, Second Edition. Richard J. Larsen, Morris L. Marx. 1986. Chapter 6, "Hypothesis Testing," page 287:
The process of dichotomizing the possible conclusions of an experiment and then using the theory of probability to choose between the two alternatives is known as hypothesis testing. The two competing propositions are called the null hypothesis (written H0) and the alternative hypothesis (written H1). How we go about choosing between H0 and H1 is conceptually similar to the way a jury deliberates in a court trial. The null hypothesis is analogous to the defendant: just as the latter is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so is the null hypothesis presumed true until the data argue overwhelmingly to the contrary.
Do you want me to pull out more of my textbooks?
Have you considered that you should do some research on a subject before you start pontificating about it? I don't expect you to take my word for it, no, but surely you are capable of studying something before speaking on it, yes?
Now, I know this isn't exactly basic math that you would have encountered in classes before college. But it isn't really that esoteric and there is quite a lot of information to be found.
Why must I do your homework for you?
quote:
This goes against everything I've learned about science since elementary school.
Have you considered the possibility that you didn't learn what science was? Look at what you're advocating, after all: Ghosts, spirits, and poltergeists.
quote:
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.
Huh? Who said anything about "investing" anything? You seem to think that there is some emotional and personal need to have the null hypothesis be true. On the contrary, this is precise objectivity and neutrality: Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not anybody else.
quote:
Here is what one scientist says about skepticism in science
Rupert Sheldrake? That quack? That's your source? His claims regarding the "staring effect" have been unable to be replicated. He thinks that worms and salamanders regenerate severed parts because of this "morphogenic field" (those pesky genes couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.) For all you talk about "confirmation bias," you seem to have overlooked the outrageous personal agenda in Sheldrakes work. Since you want to have a battle of dueling quotes:
Robert Todd Carroll writes:
In short, although Sheldrake commands some respect as a scientist because of his education and degree, he has clearly abandoned conventional science in favor of magical thinking. This is his right, of course. However, his continued pose as a scientist on the frontier of discovery is unwarranted. He is one of a growing horde of "alternative" scientists whose resentment at the aspiritual nature of modern scientific paradigms, as well as the obviously harmful and seemingly indifferent applications of modern science, have led them to seek their own paradigms in ancient and long-abandoned concepts. These paradigms are not new, though the terminology is. These alternative paradigms allow for angels, telepathy, psychic dogs, alternative realities, and hope for a future world where we all live in harmony and love, surrounded by blissful neighbors who never heard of biological warfare, nuclear bombs, or genetically engineered corn on the cob.
quote:
Whether you personally like what this scientist researches is immaterial.
Of course not. Don't confuse my rejection of his work as any sort of personal vendetta. I don't know him from Adam. This isn't about what I "like." It's about what he has managed to show through replicatable experiment. So far, all of his results have returned the big goose egg. And yet, he continues to claim the existnece of things that can't be shown.
quote:
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."
It isn't a question of belief. It is the nature of the beast, just as much as the logic table of X->Y is that if X is false, then X->Y is true no matter the truth value of Y.
quote:
In other words, it becomes acceptable to dismiss a new idea with nothing more than, "Everyone knows that's ridiculous,"
Huh? Where on earth did you get that from? What part of "until shown otherwise" are you having a hard time with? If you can show that the alternative hypothesis is true, then the null hypothesis is rejected. You seem to think that because you haven't been able to show the slightest evidence of your claim, we should still behave and act as it is possibly true rather than continue using the model that works without your claim.
The model works. Why do you insist on chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
with no obligation to prove that this is actually the case.
Huh? Did you bother reading my post? What part of "until shown otherwise" is escaping you?
quote:
Do you think that's what science should be about?
Do I think that science should be like this fantasy world you've concocted?
No.
I think science should progress upon evidence. If you don't have any, why should science pay you any nevermind?

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 272 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 10:56 AM Kitsune has not replied

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


Message 345 of 562 (527042)
09-30-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 11:35 AM


LindaLou writes:
quote:
Being invested in the outcome of an experiment is positive confirmation bias.
Indeed, but that isn't why we accept the null hypothesis. Instead, we accept it because we don't have any evidence against it and it works. If you can come up with evidence that it is wrong, then it is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. That's the entire point of carrying out the test: To see if the null hypothesis is wrong.
You seem to think that there is Vast Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth going on. Your claims aren't rejected due to any animus or bias but simply because you haven't shown any reason for why they might be valid.
quote:
Actively doubting the future results of an experiment or study is negative confirmation bias.
Incorrect. It's how you establish controls so that you can eliminate other possible sources for the phenomenon you are trying to study. I wonder if it might be X, but there are A, B, and C that might be doing it as well. So I have to figure out how it could not be X but rather A, B, and C in order to be able to control for their action upon the phenomenon. If I can eliminate A, B, and C while getting an outcome that is consistent with what X would predict, then I have confirmation of my hypothesis that is X.
That's how science works.
As a much brighter person than I wrote, "Until you understand what is impossible, you cannot comprehend the limits of the possible."
You have to be able to figure out how you can be wrong if you want to establish that you're right because your explanation needs to be able to eliminate all the other possibilities.
quote:
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.
That's because you are confusing "agnosticism" with "neutrality." They are not the same thing. "Neutrality" is the assumption that we don't accept things without evidence. I have no idea what you and/or RAZD want "agnosticism" to mean other than, "Blind acceptance of something that has no evidence to support it and lots of evidence indicating that it's a crock."
The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
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."
Incorrect. There is another option of: "I will conclude this is incorrect/nonexistent because all the evidence we currently have seems to indicate there is no justification for it. If/when new evidence is put forward, I will re-examine that conclusion."
You seem to think that your position exists in a complete vacuum. That can only exist at the very first consideration of a topic. Once it has been considered, you start piling up evidence.
quote:
we're talking about instances where there is little or no evidence to go on.
But that's just it: This "little or no evidence to go on" claim is a fiction you have created to try and cling to your biases. You are pretending that these subjects haven't been investigated and found to be lacking. That doesn't mean that new information can never be forthcoming, but you're going to have to provide it and not just demand that people clap their hands and shout that they do believe in fairies lest that evidence die.
quote:
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
...shorten it down. You would not say that because you have lots of evidence that such a claim is most likely a crock. This is not your "little or no evidence to go on" scenario. Instead, you have a ton of evidence that you're drawing upon.
This is why your claim of "agnosticism" fails: You are pretending that you don't have evidence when you do.
quote:
When we look at something like theism then there is much less evidence either way
And thus, you prove my point. "Much less evidence either way"? Are you kidding? Of all the gods that have ever been put forward on this planet, are you saying there is "little or no evidence to go on"?
Why is this latest one any different from the last 10,000? Do you have new evidence?

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 280 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 11:35 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2009 4:13 AM Rrhain 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