Pseudoskepticism and logic

Here's an example:I was returning from a business trip this past weekend and as I looked out the window of the plane, I saw a bizarre light on the ground. It was nighttime and this was a bright, white light. It was rushing amazingly fast along the ground, seeming to bend and curve without any connection to any road or track.Now, is it really justified to be "agnostic" about it being an alien spaceship? Or do I start running through a whole bunch of other things before I even begin to consider that possibility?Maybe it's a helicopter shining a spotlight down on the ground. No, the light keeps going away and it keeps following the general direction of the plane travel. Helicopter searchlights don't travel that far in a generally straight line unless they're following a road. And they don't turn off the light and then turn it back on. And it doesn't just turn off...it just sort of hits an edge of some sort of terrain and gets absorbed by it, as if it were going under something. Helicopters don't go under things.A train? Perhaps it's the headlight and the tracks are going under cover of trees and tunnels and the like. No, this is Texas heading west from Dallas. Not really the "forest" part of the country. And the light is way too bright to be a simple train's headlight. And where are the rest of the lights you'd expect from a train? Besides, that light keeps up with the plane, so it's gotta be travelling at hundreds of miles per hour. We haven't developed bullet trains here in this country.A light from the plane? What kind of commercial jet would have such a powerful light to shine upon the ground and what could possibly be the reason for it? I've certainly never seen a commercial jet shine a huge spotlight on the ground. And the light is so focused as to only light up a very small spot on the ground (relatively) so brightly.Wait a minute...(*looks up*) Ah...the moon is out. It's only a bit past half-moon, but it's still quite bright and visible from this side of the plane. It's gotta be a reflection of the moon off some body of water like a river that I can't see very well because it's so dark.Now, I never really got a good look at the light on the ground that I might expect from a large, mirror-like surface of water reflecting the image, thus allowing me to see details that would indicate it was a reflection of the moon. But does anybody seriously think I should have been or still be "agnostic" about it being aliens?At any point along that event?Even though when I first didn't know what it was at all and hadn't really studied the phenomenon in any detail, is "aliens" really a "50/50" proposition? Was it truly irrational for me to start running through mundane, terrestrial options for why this light was following the plane or at the very least no better than a random place to start that is just "confirmation bias" of me due to my habit of starting with mundane, terrestrial causes?

---

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.

No. I'm claiming that to say "I don't know, I don't have any information that could differentiate this idea from imagination, therefore there is a 50% chance that it is a part of reality" is irrational.Are you attempting to say that it's rational to assign a 50% probability of existence (or any probability above the most miniscule) to an idea that appears to be exactly the same as pure imagination? No. I'm not claiming such a thing. I'm claiming that it's not rational to discuss the possibility of existence for something that cannot be differentiated from imagination. I'm not claiming that it is imagination, I'm claiming that it can't be differentiated from imagination. If someone thinks there is a difference, then that is their claim.My point is that if someone wants to start talking about the possibility for actual existence for an idea, their first step is to identify something that differentiates their idea from imagination. If that's impossible, then there's nothing rational going on.Or are you attempting to say that it's actually rational to take ideas that are identical to pure human imagination, and study their possibility of existence before there's any factual information to use at all? Now that would be curious indeed, for what would there be to study? Exactly. Therefore there's nothing to do except gain more information (either by actively looking, or passively waiting). It isn't rational at this point to jump to a conclusion that there's a 50% chance "it" actually exists. Nor is it rational to make any important decisions based on some possibility of existence. No possibility of existence can be determined in any way while there is a complete lack of factual information.Therefore, the only rational (and consistent) thing to do is ignore basing decisions against such propositions. Essentially -> atheism.If a decision is made based on a "what if it actually does exist?" type of fear or hope, while there is absolutely no factual information pointing towards such a conclusion... then it becomes impossible to remain consistent.In order to remain consistent after succumbing to such a doubt, one would have to succumb to all doubts (fears and hopes) for which there are no factual information pointing towards such conclusions. Since such a realm is infinite, it is therefore impossible to acknowledge all these unsubstantiated issues. In order to proceed in one's life, one would therefore have to be inconsistent and begin picking and choosing which baseless ideas are acknowledged and which are not.To me, being consistent is a part of being rational.However, there certainly are negatives to being strictly rational.
-it can slow progress (irrational exploration can be quicker than a strictly methodical approach).
-it's not much "fun"Personally, I myself even find it "not right" to ignore some things that I would like to be true, or just "feel" to be true. But, I acknoweldge that doing so is irrational, and inconsistent. I purchase video games irrationally all the time. "Hey, that looks cool!" Sometimes it is. Usually it is not.However, when important decisions are concerned such as what I want to do with my life, what sort of person I want to be, how I can support my friends and family... I find it only responsible and reasonable to take a strictly rational approach. It may be a slower-going, but I find it important to reduce errors as much as possible when dealing with important issues.When we stop acknowledging when we're being irrational, it becomes very easy to use those same irrationally-based methods on unimportant and important tasks equally. This is where the trouble begins.

Indeed. Most certainly. Not proof, which is why I am 6 on the Dawkins scale for all the (effectively infinite) mutually exclusive god propositions, and you're 6 for all except one of them. You cannot, logically, avoid being so. Yes. Wrong. That phrase would have been correct without the words "or con". "Con" isn't "false", as you put it above, or impossible, but "unlikely". You conclude "con" all the time, and it is only principle that keeps you at "6" on the Dawkins scale, not "7", on many things. You're forcing me to tell you what you do, and it's something we all do except for a handful of pour souls who have lost the ability to make likelihood assessments, and started to spend too much time looking for gremlins when their cars broke down, and leaving their yards to become completely overgrown because the fairies might like it.Such people can be frequently found in hospitals, but you are not like this, RAZD, you just seem to think so.Earlier in the thread, someone suggested that there might be a dragon in the room next to you, but of course, you didn't check.A dragon, the only one in captivity, would be invaluable, and its ownwer a multi-millionaire. So, even if you estimated the probability of the dragon being there as low as 1 in 100,000, it would have been worth checking.But you didn't, because the absence of evidence for dragons in general and dragons appearing suddenly in people's houses in particular is overwhelming, and you would automatically be a six on the proposition. You would have made a "con" decision while retaining your agnostic purety, and we all do this frequently.You were not being "pseudo-skeptical" in not investigating the dragon. Consistent absence of evidence for existence is evidence of absence for existence in most cases, and all of us are forced to act on that assumption.Don't forget to put the milk out for your local leprechauns tonight, or they might get mischevious. I always do. It beats discussing magic floods (a 6 proposition with omphalism, 7 without) with hillbillies. Edited by bluegenes, : typo

quote:

---

So the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
  —RAZD

---

The absence of evidence being evidence of absence is a logical fallacy. Just because you have no immediate evidence of something does not necessarily mean that something did not occur or something does not exist, rather it could also mean that not enough evidence has been gathered to make a determination either way.That is what RAZD is saying. No one is saying that we should believe in all things equally because it might be true, however implausible it may seem. It simply denotes the difference between agnosticism and atheism.The manner in which people are speaking about atheism is that it is synonymous with agnosticism, and if it is, is it not redundant to refer to oneself as an "agnostic atheist" (which is a tautology) if they are the same thing?To be an atheist is to deny the supernatural, which is fine. Why is it not acceptable to neither confirm nor deny a belief in the supernatural until proof in either direction is established?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I heard a great quote by Sagan the other day - and it went (something) like this:...people have often created a god or gods to tell us how the universe came into being. They say that god created the universe. That forces us to ask the question "what created god?". If you assume that god came from nothing, and created the universe, why not save a step, and say the universe came from nothing?

​

Some people say god always was, and then created the universe. Why not save a step, and say the universe always has been, and requires neither a creator nor a beginning?...I think he gets it - don't unnecessarily complicate matters (occam's razor).If all the world apparently works as well as it does without divine interference, why would you still put a god high on the list of things you believe in without evidence?Either you do NOT believe that everything could exist without a god, or you are fooling yourself for some other reason.As I said with the teapot - it could be there...but belief in it is rather pointless because it is not provable. It makes more sense to assume there is not until such time as there is evidence. there's lots of things you can't disprove - santa claus, fairies, unicorns, elves, bogey monsters, demons, witches, spirits, ghosts, clairvoyance...are you really, really sure you want to seriously entertain their existence?If you are, it's fine - I mean most people will to some extent say it could be possible, they just don't hold it very likely.Or am I missing the point of this thread?

"That's a good point, Boomhauer, but it's not what we're talking about."
-King of the HillIf there is an absence of evidence for keys in my pocket, then this is evidence for the absence of keys in my pocket.If I check my pocket and no keys are found, it is not a logical fallacy to conclude that there are no keys in my pocket.If I check the recorded history of mankind and no real Gods are found (just stories), it is not a logical fallacy to conclude that none of the Gods from those stories actually exist in reality.Just because it sounds similar to the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" fallacy doesn't mean that you can conflate the context.

quote:

---

Some people say god always was, and then created the universe. Why not save a step, and say the universe always has been, and requires neither a creator nor a beginning?
  —Carl Sagan

---

It is a good philosophical question pointing to an infinite regression, however, we know empirically that the universe indeed did have a beginning. That makes the question moot, but cannot automatically disqualify a god.What you can do with things pertaining to God is to debunk certain inconsistencies. For instance if someone makes a claim that Genesis is the accurate and infallible Word of God, you can debunk that which is logically inconsistent within the text and in essence bring in to disrepute the vailidity of such a God. That is wholly different because now we are dealing with specifics and specific claims. I'm not a theist nor an atheist. I am agnostic. Secondly, you are making an appeal to incredulity. However absurd something may sound on a personal level, it does not negate a claim in and of itself (see: argumentum ad absurdum). That's a faulty premise. But we aren't talking about what we do believe in, are we? We are not discussing belief or disbelief in God, but rather agnosticism which neither believes nor disbelieves. THAT is the most logically consistent answer for someone who can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of God.This is what RAZD is pointing out and I happen to agree.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Okay, so then there not being any ambiguous evidence that water exists on the moon therefore means that there is no water on the moon? You see, the premise does not follow and that's the point. There very well may have been water on the moon but ONLY that we didn't have any evidence to suggest otherwise. But does that negate the possibility? Obviously not. Surely you can see why you are declaring a logical fallacy. If we checked the moon for water and didn't find any, does that mean the moon doesn't have any water or that no evidence exists AS OF YET to suggest there is? If you can understand that simple illustration then you can understand why RAZD makes sense. Some people have claimed it outright. And there is evidence to suggest that.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I don't think you understand.No one is saying that the fallacy doesn't exist.It's just that the fallacy doesn't apply to this context.The fallacy doesn't apply when looking for keys in my pocket.
The fallacy doesn't apply when looking for Gods in the recorded history of humans.You need to make sure that the fallacy actually applies to the concept being discussed before you claim that the fallacy is actually disrupting the logic behind the statements.

Hi greyseal, haven't talked to yet since you joined, so welcome EvC. It looks like you're right in the battle with good logical points. Something that took me a while to get the hang of without just debating on emotion alone. I thank CS and Rrhain for that.With that out of the way... Good point, I think many of us debating against RAZD's OP are claiming this very thing.As Rrhain said in Message 191, which I think is the most simple to understand of all our attempts to debate this point:

quote:

---

Exactly backwards. What is needed is evidence that any concept of any kind isn't simply made up.

​

The null hypothesis is always assumed to be true unless there is evidence to deny it. If you're going to claim something exists, then you're the one that needs to show it. It is not up to the one denying it to demonstrate such.

​

The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence of something missing?

​

If you can't even define what it is that is missing, how do you know that there might be something missing in the first place?

---

(emPHasis done by me)*Note: Rrhain i was going to nominate this for PotM but honestly I was too busy... and you're a bit of a douche sometimes. LOL - j/k This always strikes me as odd, that for some reason, when talks get philosophical, all of a sudden the laws of physics and the natural order of reality get ignored? It's no wonder philosophy is a dying art. We're starting to understand existance more and more every day, and positing supernatural entities for the cause this existance is becoming less and less relevant. People seek objective evidence, and require it for explanations more and more everyday; no longer are they satisfied with god-did-it.- Oni

No, it means there is some evidence that there is no water on the moon. It means, until we find conflicting evidence, it is rational to BELIEVE there is no water on the moon. It may turn out you're wrong, and in this case, it seems we were, but being wrong does not automatically mean you were being irrational.If you look high and low for something and find no evidence of that thing, it makes sense to give its existence a low probability. Notice, the probability is not zero, and things with low probability happen and exist all the time. Until you find evidence that something does, in fact, exist, it seems, to me anyway, irrational to assert its existence with any sort of conviction beyond, "Well, it's possible, I guess..." which is far lower than 4 on the scale.I think, we all start at 7 for any claim. We're a 7 for all claims not made, since we haven't thought of them, we can't even hold an "it's possible but unlikely" position. Once a claim is made, we have to assert it's possibility, and we move to a 6. As evidence is provided, we move up the ladder to 5 and 4, and if the evidence is really good and/or keeps pouring in, we may make it to 2 or 1. Making people start at 4 causes people to skip the first few steps, and thus we end up with RAZD asking us for the evidence by which we say a particular claim is not evidenced.

Then why do you constantly make decisions based on it? Why bother working when you could go dragon hunting? One dragon corpse would probably be worth more than you'll earn in a lifetime. So, what are you basing your decision not to go dragon hunting on, if not absence of evidence for their existence? Which is why "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a completely different statement from "absence of evidence is proof of absence". Thinking, as I do, that the existence of dragons, Zeus, Apollo and Jehovah are all very unlikely is not the same as claiming proof that they don't exist. You can't prove the non-existence of fairies, whether they exist or not. And that's how he ended up giving omphalism a 50/50 chance. I think you're talking about the difference between agnosticism and strong atheism.Hyro, an agnostic is not merely a doubting theist. Agnosticism is the position that you cannot know whether there are gods or not. Most agnostics, having reached that conclusion, then realise that it's impossible to rationally believe in anything if you cannot know anything about it, including its existential state, so they become weak atheists, and that's the largest category of atheist. Because they are not mutually exclusive does not mean that they are the same thing at all. An atheist, in the broadest sense, is someone who lacks belief in gods. For agnostic, see above.Let's try it with dragons. I'm agnostic on them, because there's no way one can conclusively know whether or not they exist, and I'm a-dragonist, because I don't have any reason to believe in them, and I think that, like all evidenceless supernatural propositions, they're very unlikely.What about you? Do you pretty much agree with me on dragons?And if so, why not on gods?

True.I personally am agnostic because I can't be sure - but then I think that every atheist is an agnostic because if you pressed them they'd have to agree they can't be sure - but that they think it so unlikely that the logical course for them is to disbelieve until there IS proof (that is, the "absence of evidence" is "evidence of absence" ...for them).I happen to think that IS logical, but I apparently lack the ability to say why any better than saying "occam's razor".That is to say that an atheist might be wrong, most I think would say it is possible, but that they do not believe.Are you talking about "mere" un-belief, or are you talking more about those who say "it is impossible" ?That's two different things, I think.Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

One problem here is that agnostic and atheist are on different scales. One is a statement of knowledge and the other is a statement of belief. They often influence each other, but people often conflate them with speaking about the same things.I agree with RAZD, if there's no evidence, we should be agnostic since we can't know. I think we can also, rationally, be atheistic, meaning, despite recognizing we can't absolutely know whether a god/s exist or not, we also don't believe they exist.

Hi,thanks for the welcome, and you've got it right, I think.The null hypothesis - you'd have to prove it was a logical fallacy.