Pseudoskepticism and logic

Hi xongsmith, And about making claims that are not supported by evidence, in particular negative claims, yes. Where

• Box 1 would be evidence for a strong or absolute theist
• Box 2 would be evidence for a theist agnostic or weak theist
• Box 3 would be evidence for a strong or absolute atheist
• Box 4 would be evidence for an atheist agnostic or weak atheist

And the pure agnostic is not on the list because it makes no claim and thus uses both 2&4 combined? Well that IS the problem. If, as you claim, there cannot be evidence for box 3, then that makes the strong atheist position difficult to support and this position should not be claimed as supported by evidence.Same holds for box 1 and strong theism, but that's a different topic.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) • • •

That's not exactly what I had in mind, but that can work here, provisionally. Sure - why not, makes a good consistency of soup here. That is not what I claim. What I am saying is that in the 466 posts in this thread no one has put anything in Box 3. Instead it's all about Box 4 or Box 1. And I think there may have been something placed in Box 2, but I cannot recall. Yes. And Box 4 is off topic. Even Box 2 is off topic.
As far as I know, Box 3 is the OP subject and not one post here has dealt with it.What I wanted to do was to rally the troops here and come up with something we could put in Box 3. Not whether it has been done, but what kind of thing would it be? For example, I suggested that a huge God-like face landing on the White House lawn and allowing scientists to prod & poke away and demonstrating supernatural powers on live TV would be something you would place in Box 1. That would demonstrate the Presence of Evidence for supernatural things. I'm not suggesting that we go out now and start waiting with a team of scientists on the White House lawn or anything.What kind of test can we think up for Presence of Evidence for no supernatural things?There is the nub.Anything that tests for the Absence of something, like "Everything we have observed up to date is consistent with no supernatural things" falls in Box 4. Like *all* of Straggler's arguments about God-entities being made up by mankind. "Every one that has been properly investigated in depth turns out to have been made up, so, by Inductive Reasoning, all God-entities are most extremely likely to have been made up" is an Absence of Evidence argument.

---

- xongsmith

Hi RAZD I asked you where you were on the Dawkins scale on omphalism, and you replied "4", which is defined as 50/50 on that scale. Yet you defined yourself as being "3" on the Dawkins scale in relation to the existence of god (3 is defined as more than 50/50 but not much more) and you describe yourself as a deist. You may have inadvertently misrepresented your position by using the number "4" in answer to my question, which concerned the Dawkins scale, but that's no-one else's fault.You have since given us another answer. You don't have enough evidence to make a decision or a probability estimate. Is that correct?Is it your position that someone like me is being a pseudo-skeptic because I'm a "6" on the Dawkins scale in relation to omphalism? Yet you are calling people who choose a "6" in relation to evidenceless propositions "pseudo-skeptics". "6" involves the "very/extremely unlikely" probability estimate, just as "3" involves the "more likely than not" estimate.Let's look at "the issue". From your O.P.

quote:

---

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:

​

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."

---

Now let's look at what Truzzi is talking about, which is investigation into the "paranormal". An example would be if someone reports seeing a ghost in the house. The skeptic, by Truzzi's description, would say that whatever is being perceived, the burden of proof is on those who make the ghost claim. He does not offer an alternative explanation. If someone does offer an alternative explanation, then that doesn't remove the burden for the ghost claim, but adds a burden of proof for the "skeptic".In other words, Truzzi is defining such a person as not really being skeptical about a mysterious phenomenon, because he or she has offered an explanation, as has the person who claims "ghost".So, how does this relate the discussion on "god" that we're having here. Atheism doesn't offer an explanation of the universe, does it? We would have to be talking about mysterious phenomena, and the best examples are the kind of "god" experiences that many people claim, and that you mention frequently.If the claim is that these are evidence of a real god, then the true skeptic, according to the way Truzzi wants to define skeptic, would say that these phenomena are "not proved" to relate to a real god. He or she would not offer an alternative explanation.So, if I claimed that all apparent god experiences were due to a specific neurological condition (I'm not), I would also be making a claim to explain these phenomena, and I would no longer be a skeptic by Truzzi's definition (although I could only be a pseudo-skeptic if I were describing myself as a skeptic on the issue, presumably).One thing that has been causing confusion is Truzzi's reference to a "negative claim". The two claims about god experiences (evidence of real god, neurological condition) are both positive, they're only negative in relation to each other.Truzzi's definitions don't really apply to the "is there a god" question, because there's no phenomenon being discussed, only an abstract idea.But they would apply to any real phenomena that were being attributed to god (god experiences, lightning bolts, the universe).All Truzzi is really expressing is the age old idea of suspending judgement during investigations. Right. So any specific proposition is unlikely. You brought the Dawkins scale into the thread. It says "god" singular.
You said you were a "3"Are you now amending that to being a "3" on "any god/s". including the plural?Omphalism is a specific proposition. I'm a "6". Why would that make me a pseudo-skeptic? It's irrelevant. We could have a specific Omphalistic god proposition with a given age, but Omphalism anyway describes a specific type of god who deliberately creates the earth with a false appearance of age. The omphalistic god has to compete with all other evidenceless gods. He is, to me, a 6, as all the others must be.The general proposition that the universe was created by a god or gods at any time also has to compete with an infinite number of non-god propositions, both supernatural and natural. So it's also a six.In an area in which we can know absolutely nothing, any proposition is a 6. You need evidence to shift up to 5.The skeptic takes the "6" position on proposition "x" because "x" is not supported with evidence.You're making the common mistake amongst theists of giving gods a greater likelihood than other propositions, like nine dimensional universe making machines, when they don't have any more evidence to support them.I'm a "6" on nine dimensional universe making machines, of course.Call me Mr. "6". The atheist position is just lack of belief in gods. Babies are implicit atheists. What you mean is evidence of the "6" position; a view that gods are unlikely.That's the same as the evidence that fairies don't exist, and that dragons don't exist. No positive evidence for them, and plenty of evidence of the human tendency to invent such things, as the thousands of mutually exclusive beliefs illustrate. It's also because any evidenceless proposition is unlikely in an unknown area, as explained above.Belief is active, RAZD, and there's no reason to believe in anything merely because it is suggested to us.Edited by bluegenes, : clarification

I've been reading this conversation between you, Modulous, and RAZD with interest. I'd like to jump back in on a few points if you don't mind.

quote:

---

People do have experiences where they experience the same things in a different way. That's basically the physicalist hypothesis. The god hypothesis would be where the person is experiencing something different.

---

Could you explain what you mean by this? In particular, how is the God hypothesis "experiencing something different"?I wonder if we can clarify this equation that you both have been discussing. In Message 393 you defined x as:

quote:

---

. . . an integer. I defined it as 'the number of possible unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypotheses that can explain any given phenomena that is sometimes attributed to 'god'.' If you want the given phenomena to be 'religious or spiritual experience' then that's fine. What number do you think x is?

---

RAZD replied in Message 430:

quote:

---

My personal opinion? That x = y + b is one possibility, where y is variable and b is constant.

---

There was no further clarification in that particular message, but in Message 457 by RAZD:

quote:

---

every x = y + b where b is a constant element of the spiritual or religious experiences.

---

It seems to me that, using these terms, x and b are the same thing. I'm a bit hazy as to what y is -- a variable that represents what, exactly?I'd like to propose a new equation. Let x=reality or truth. Let a=any permutation of a theistic hypothesis, be it Zeus or the IPU -- all these things that, individually, Modulous says have a very small likelihood of being the correct "x." Let b=the common elements of all theistic hypotheses, i.e. in RAZD's, analogy, the chlorophyll making all the leaves green.I believe what RAZD and I are saying is that while the probability of x=a being true is low, the probability of x=b is much higher. I hope RAZD will let me know if I've summarised this incorrectly. Visually, the latter would look something like this:x= The question of course remains as to whether b is a genuine experience of the divine, or whether it's due to things that others here have mentioned such as wishful thinking or various kinds of brain activity -- or both. I think this would be a discussion for a separate thread though. Such a discussion could posit the probabilities of these explanations, which would in turn give us more evidence to ultimately say where on the agnostic spectrum the logical position ought to lie.

It makes more sense in the context of the sighted flashes and blind people conversation. If you are blind and have a vision flash of your mother you are experiencing the same entity as everybody else (your mother) in a different way (through sight).God, on the other hand, is not your mother. So 'blind' people (those without religious experiences) don't experience god in the same way blind people experience their mothers. Yes - I'm confused on these too. I've asked RAZD for clarification a few times so I'm confident we'll learn what they mean. I think it is a result of RAZD and I being on different pages. Yes - I said as much in Message 410:

quote:

---

Chance of it being YHWH is very low because YHWH is a very specific entity being described (brushing aside difficulties in bringing conflicting ideas in the bible to one side).
There is a higher chance that it is an invisible pink unicorn (which has less stated properties as YHWH)
There is a higher chance that it is at least one invisible pink unicorn (since that includes one and many IPUs which contains more members than pure monounicornism)
Higher still that it is at least one invisible unicorn (all colours of invisible unicorn permitted),

​

Higher still that it is at least one invisible equine being
Higher that it is at least one intangible equine being
Higher that it is at least one unverifiable equine being
Higher that it is at least one unverifiable mammal-like being
"" "" unverifiable divine being.
"" "" "" entity.
"" "" entity.

---

and I think I tackled this argument in my 'piles of hypotheses' argument introduced in Message 461.

No matter how cleverly or self deceivingly you phrase it you are essentially citing belief in a common "something" as evidence upon which to justify belief in a common "something". This is blatantly circular reasoning. Just one of the numerous points raised by myself and others that remain unconfronted by yourself or RAZD. Message 442And you continue to ignore the whole issue of whether or not invoking a supernatural answer to any observable phenomenon is now rationally and evidentially justified given the history of scientific progress and the retreat of superstitious mysticism: Message 436. And don't get me started on the ongoing denial of facts that you and RAZD are engaged in regarding the objectively evidenced possibility of human invention Vs the possibility of gods actually existing.......Yeah yeah I know - "Off topic" or "We have already answered all your questions if you could only see the answers...." etc. etc. etc. I know the drill. I am depressingly familiar with it by now. Deny, evade, ignore and then as a last resort attack your opponent as a black and white simple minded zealout. I expect nothing more.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The possibile explanations as to why humans might claim to have experienced the supernatural are all but infinite. From telepathic dolphins inducing religious experiences to the random effects of cosmic rays on the brain. From the existence of some sort of "unknowable" (which poses it's own problems see Message 395) supernatural entity actually existing to a natural by-product of the evolved human brain. Any possibility imaginable needs to be taken into account when assessing likelihood if unevidenced claims are to be given equal weight. The infinite set of possibilities involving gods of one sort or another are a mere subset of the infinite set that is ALL the possible answers to this question.Why in your reasoning do you only ever suppose that the subset of "god answers" is the only one from which we can pick our answer? Why do you insist on choosing one of the infinite multitude of objectively unevidenced answers (of which god answers are a subset)? Rather than one of those for which objective evidence is available?It is simple denial of facts and evidence on your part. It is essentially an example of Message 436You seem pretty atheistic about all specific descriptions of god. In hindsight you seem to reject the desitic description of god that you gave previously (shown below - and it is pretty lame you must admit). Thus I don't know what concept of god it is that you are actually claiming that atheists need to justify their atheism towards?If this discussion isn't about any specific current or historical god, if it isn't about the definition of a deity you have provided then what is it about? What exactly are you claiming that I am unjustifiably atheistic towards? "Unknowable"? "Outside our universe"? "Doing other things"? Everytime I read this it cracks me up more.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi xongsmith, Good luck with that. I keep asking for the evidence, and so far all I get are arguments that are logically questionable if not outright false. So far all we have are logically weak or false rationales for belief, with the pretense that it is evidence. Exactly, just repeated many times, as if repetition of a false argument makes it more valid.And of course there is the question of what "properly investigated" means, ie what was being tested.

• That Zeus/Thor/etc caused lightening?
• That god/s created a universe with lightening in it, thus causing it? (to answer Rrhain's question once again)

Or do we just have another example of confirmation bias in how the evidence is interpreted.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : etc

---

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) • • •

LindaLou responds to me:

quote:

---

Still insisting on applying the scientific method to metaphysics?

---

What's wrong with that? What is the problem with applying the hypothesize-test-rework process to questions of philosophy? Yes, the scientific method is a philosophy itself, but logic is also philosophical and we use logic in philosophy all the time.You seem to be implying that the method can only be utilized on things that can be put in a test tube.

quote:

---

But the scientific method is more problematic.

---

Why? Why is insisting on solid definitions that must interact in logical ways that are then tested, observed, and refined "problematic"? Shouldn't we apply that concept to most everything we do? I'm hardly saying that everything is scientific. I'm simply saying that the concept of testing our assumptions to see how they fail and making adjustments based upon those observations is about as far as "problematic" as can get.Science can't say that something is "music" for that is purely subjective. But just because it can't tell you if you'd think a certain acoustic waveform is music, it can be used to describe it once you've made your subjective determination. It's the basis for Pandora: Musical styles have traits and if you find certain pieces of music good, then other pieces of music that share those traits are more likely to be considered good.So no, not everything is science, but there is no reason not to approach any question through a "science-like" method.

quote:

---

By the way, while mathematics is logical, it is also a language for describing reality; and like the words we use, it can be used to make both true and false propositions while maintaining its internal logic.

---

Well, no. No, it can't. That's the point behind consistency: You cannot make both true and false propositions. And please, let us not hear anybody pipe up with Godel. Unless you can quote to me the specific theorem in its symbolic format, I can pretty much guarantee that you don't understand what he was saying.

quote:

---

That's beside the point though.

---

No, it isn't. It's a symptom of the entire point: You want your personal feelings and capriciousness to be functionally equivalent to observation and rigor. And one way to do that is to cast observation and rigor as something worthless. That paying attention to what you're doing and examining it, testing it, trying to duplicate it, is somehow anathema to "real" understanding.There's a cartoon I saw from XKCD about the difference between normal people and scientists. A normal person will see a lever, get zapped by lightning, and respond with, "I'm never doing that again!" A scientist will see a lever, get zapped by lightning, and respond with, "I wonder if that happens every time?"

quote:

---

Am I supposed to be chastened by your alleged superior knowledge of the subjects?

---

Oh, for crying out loud. This isn't about me. You don't know me from Adam and I couldn't care less what you think about me. My "alleged superior knowledge" can be simply acquired by you: Read the books. Step away from the computer, go to the library, pick up a book, and read it. None of this is sacred knowledge that only the priests are allowed to see.We'll still be here when you come back, but we won't have to start from scratch and turn this place into remedial philosophy. I not only cannot type in the entire Discourses, it would be highly inappropriate for me to do so.

quote:

---

I asked you before if you would care to share anything that seems pertinent to this particular topic. Curiously, little seems to be forthcoming.

---

Huh? I give you reference after reference and somehow it is my fault that you haven't bothered to do your homework and read them?I can't make you read, LindaLou. I cannot do your homework for you.Now let me see if I understand your entire argument: If I say something, you're response is to chastise me for expecting you to believe me just because I say it. But if I direct you to the original sources that aren't me, you're going to complain that I'm not telling it to you directly.You don't get to have it both ways. Now, since I don't want you to accept things just because I say so, this means that you need to get off your ass and put forth some effort to educate yourself on the subject you would like to have a discussion about.

quote:

---

Last I checked, the dictionary was handy for defining terms.

---

Last I checked, dictionaries were descriptive, not proscriptive. It is the same "But the dictionary says!" stupidity that has creationists try to claim that evolution is just a guess because the word "theory" can be defined that way.

quote:

---

Defining terms is pretty important in a discussion don't you think?

---

They have been. But now you're trying to play a game of equivocation.

quote:

---

Curiously, this particular example refers to the question of whether these nouns are physical entities or abstract concepts.

---

Huh? We're talking about the difference between reality and fantasy and how one might distinguish the two.

quote:

---

Am I detecting a hint of a materialist prejudice here?

---

Not at all. What you're detecting is a hint of rigor. The things that you are testing don't have to be sitting in front of you. Again, you seem to be implying that science can only apply to things in test tubes.

quote:

---

How do you test concepts against reality if there is no empirical evidence for those concepts?

---

That's the entire point! If you don't have any evidence, by what chutzpah do you dare proclaim that they exist?You seem to be claiming that this complete lack of evidence is a common state when the exact opposite is true. There is a plethora of evidence around: The model works.So why are you insisting chocolate sprinkles? What is your justification for saying that something is missing?

quote:

---

Can the scientific method get us out of problems like solipsism? No.

---

Cartesian Doubt? Are you seriously running back to that? How many times must it be rejected before you drop it?But yes, the scientific method can get us out of solipsism because things happen outside of our awareness and are then brought into it. And can be done so reliably and against our will.

quote:

---

But the being-ness or essence of something is more than its physical characteristics. Unless you think like a materialist.

---

Or unless I demand that you show justification for why there is something missing. The model works. Why are demanding chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?

quote:

---

Exactly what model are you referring to in this instance?

---

Whatever one you want. If you're not going to be specific about what you're talking about, why should you expect anybody else to be?Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming that there is something missing. It would be nice if you woudl provide the justification for why this is so.

quote:

---

Maybe because I'm open to the possibility that it is there.

---

Where is your evidence? The model seems to be working without it. All the stuff we have examined seems to be accountable for everything, so where is the justification that something more is needed?Obviously, we haven't observed everything. That is impossible. We're quite likely wrong about a lot of things. That's how we progress in our understanding of the world around us. But until you have evidence that we have made a mistake, that there is something missing, that the actual outcome is different from the expected outcome, why would we demand that the working model actually doesn't?

quote:

---

If you think we can be sure to any degree that it isn't there, then you need to support your claim with evidence.

---

I have. What part of "the model works" are you having trouble with? Is there an actual result that isn't jibing with the expected result? That's evidence that there's something up.Where is your evidence? The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?

quote:

---

If this is impossible to do, then the rational position is agnosticism.

---

(*blink!*) If it is impossible to show the existence of something, then the rational position is agnosticism? That makes no sense. If it is impossible to show its existence, then the only rational conclusion is that it isn't there. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If the model works just fine without it, what possible reason is there to consider it being there since it contributes absolutely nothing?

quote:

---

Because the first question is one about the nature of reality, for which there is little or no empirical evidence.

---

Huh? You mean all the other gods that have come before have no bearing on the case for how we should consider this new one? Do you not understand that the non-existence of an expected result is actual evidence?

quote:

---

The second question is rooted in a known physical reality which is easily investigated.

---

Why does the "ease" of investigation have any bearing? Why are we incapable of examining this "god" object of yours? If it is incapable of being examined, then how on earth can you claim that it exists? Even in a "maybe" stance? The model seems to work just fine without it. And if you cannot tell the difference between the model without it and this new model that requires it, what possible justification is there to claim that it is there?

quote:

---

You don't seem to like Cartesian Doubt much, but you haven't explained what your particular problem with it is.

---

Because it has been disproven. The idea that we are simply "plagued by demons" is not borne out by reality. Have you read Descartes' description and subsequent rejection? Have you done your homework? Have you stepped away from here and put some effort into learning something that you haven't bothered to investigate before?Have you ever bothered to invistigate Descartes' conclusion? "I think, therefore I am." What might that mean? After all, if the demons are controlling everything, how is it that you are aware of any of it?Why are you so resistant to picking up the original material and reading it? Don't take my word for it. You're only going to whine that it came from me.

quote:

---

He only "didn't hold truck with it" because it made him feel uncomfortable, and he used God as a get-out clause.

---

Then you clearly haven't read his discussion of it. Yes, the Discourses eventually goes to try and prove the existence of god, but the question of Descartes' existence in the first place had nothing to do with divinity and everything to do with natural philosophy.Seriously: Go and read the book. I can't reduce it into a sound bite for you. This isn't something that comes easy. You have to put in the effort to read the whole thing.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what your question above has to do with anything; it's just another example of the problem Descartes had with trying to find something that is 100% certain.

---

Since you haven't read him, how can you tell? The evidence is there, but you are actively ignoring it for some reason. You seem to want me to tell you but then you'll simply whine that it's just me saying it. So stop depending on me to do your homework and do it for yourself.Suppose you are being plagued by demons who control your entire sensory input so that you are not experiencing reality but rather a perfect simulation of reality. Fine...so what are the demons working upon? What is it they are not controlling? What part of this "perfect illusion" has been left out that cannot possibly be an illusion but is actually evidence of a reality that truly exists?What on earth do you think, "I think, therefore I am" means?So now that we know that you do exist, how does that fact apply to everything else? So you do exist, but the demons are still plaguing you. Is it ever possible for you to find that out? Is it at all possible to escape from the illusion? If not, then how does that illusion differ from actual reality? A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Why add the complications of a set of demons making you think everything exists absolutely perfectly without any errors when actual reality accomplishes the same thing?

quote:

---

Pardon? When did I ever claim that this is the case?

---

You're the one introducing solipsism. You did bother to look up what that meant before you said it, yes? Solipsism is the idea that your mind is the only thing that exists, and thus all the reality that you experience is nothing more than an illusion...a sophisticated simulation of reality.

quote:

---

Firstly, you are contradicting your original Wikipedia source which said that the null hypothesis is the "status quo," which is different.

---

Huh? Solipsism is rejected. Your mind is not the only thing that exists. There is a reality out there. That is the status quo. Thus, the null hypothesis starts from here because that is the model that we have. It works.Where is your justification that it doesn't? Have you done any research into the question? Have you bothered to read any of the myriad treatises on what Descartes called "first philosophy"? Anything on epistemology?

quote:

---

Secondly, how do you know what's real and what isn't?

---

Nice try, but that's my question to you. The way I know what is real and what isn't is by examination. How do you do it? Wishing makes it so? Clap your hands hard enough and Tinkerbell really lives?

quote:

---

Have you suddenly obtained omniscience or enlightenment?

---

(*chuckle*) Compared to you?

quote:

---

Maybe you'd care to read the OP again?

---

You mean the one with which I disagree? The one whose fundamental premise is flawed and fails upon the most casual examination? The one that RAZD has spent at least three threads avoiding every single direct question put to him?

quote:

---

I can see how it would make you closer to "wrong" than someone who took the agnostic position.

---

Huh? How does ignoring evidence ever make you "closer to 'right'" than someone who actually looks at the evidence, sees that the model works without this unevidenced, undetectable, incapable of even being defined for crying out loud object and responds that it doesn't exist until you show evidence that it does?The model works. Why do you deman chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?

quote:

---

I can see that it's nonsensical when we're talking about what constitutes the nature of reality itself and we have no empirical evidence to go on.

---

Huh? Why do you deny all the evidence around you? Are you saying that it is impossible to ever show evidence for god? Then how on earth can it possibly change anything? How does an object that doesn't actually do anything get to be declared as something that exists? Even hypothetically?A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

quote:

---

Are you even willing to concede the possibility that there may be things that exist for which we don't currently have any empirical evidence?

---

What makes you think we don't have any emprical evidence? Where is this fantasy land you live in that is completely blank?

quote:

---

Really? Where do you see evidence for or against the existence of the divine?

---

In the examination of their traits and finding that the expected result isn't there. That's evidence.

quote:

---

"Absence of evidence" does not itself constitute evidence.

---

Of course not, but absence of results is evidence.

quote:

---

How can you be anything else in the absence of evidence?

---

Because there is no absence of evidence. There is a mountain of it. You're just ignoring it because you don't like what it means for your philosophy.The model works. That's the evidence. So why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing? What actual result deviates from the expected result?

quote:

---

If you'd used the word "atheistic" instead of "agnostic" in your first sentence, as some others have done here, then this would have been another lightbulb moment.

---

Except it wouldn't have made any sense. Just as your insistence upon "agnosticism" makes no sense. How can you have any position, even one of "not knowing" about nothing?

---

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.

petrophysics1 writes:

quote:

---

I have two sons, like all the other males in the world I have NO objective verifiable evidence they are biologically mine.

---

Actually, you do...you just haven't carried out the process yet. DNA testing isn't that bizarre.

quote:

---

I operate under the belief they are, based upon my wife’s word that this is true and a very subjective opinion that they resemble me. This does not rise to the level of ‘objective verifiable evidence.

---

Incorrect. That is actual objective, verifiable evidence. It isn't the strongest evidence in the world for there is a large margin of error, but it is evidence out there. Now I suddenly have C.S. Lewis going through my head (ugh!) What are they teaching in the schools these days?Do you find your wife to be one who lies to you? Even if the truth would be painful? This doesn't mean she never would, but if she is a generally reliable person, then her claim that these children are yours isn't made in a vacuum but rather in the context of all the evidence that she tends to be honest with you.The fact that your children look like you is actual evidence in favor of them being yours. If they weren't, then there is a very real possiblity that they would look nothing like you due to morphological expression of genetic traits that would rule you out. Their similarity to you is not made in a vacuum but rather in the context of all the other evidence about how genetic traits of a child are acquired from the parents.Again, this isn't the strongest evidence possible. Something as important as bearing another man's child might cross a line with regard to your wife's willingness to be honest with you. If the father looked a lot like you, then we shouldn't be surprised that they look similar to you.But it is evidence. Do not ignore it.

quote:

---

So atheists, show me you believe nothing.

---

Huh? I think it's the other way around. It is you who has to show me that you believe in anything that doesn't have some sort of evidence behind it. Where is this place you live in that has absolutely no evidence of any kind?

---

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.

xongsmith writes:

quote:

---

I mean, think of it: even convincingly demonstrating that the Universe is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a Universe with ZERO supernatural presence - and I mean flat out to the zillionth decimal point - is still Absence Of Evidence and therefore not Evidence of Absence.

---

Incorrect. It is evidence of absence. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If the model works without the action of this other object and if there is no evidence anywhere to be found that this object is there to act, under what justification do we deny the conclusion that it isn't there?How does an undetectable object differ from a non-existent one?

---

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.

...well some might regard that as Absence of Evidence for chocolate sprinkles..."it isn't there" So says you. This maybe should be fleshed out a little more, like a Michealson-Morley Experiment to detect Aether. I think Einstein was said to have remarked "Well - I guess aether cannot be detected." - which was different at the time then saying it didn't exist. Later on, of course, it becomes retroactive confirmation of the constancy of the Speed of Light, the Big Lynch Pin of Relativity. Here we see one result, the Absence of Evidence for one thing (aether) becoming the Presence of Evidence for something else (the Big Speed Limit). (emphasis mine)In other words, the model, as it currently is known, without any chocolate sprinkles (needing of the supernatural), works everywhere we have looked. This is evidence that supernatural things (so far) are not needed, and are thus equivalent to mere chocolate sprinkles. This is Presence of Evidence for NO supernatural things, as opposed to Absence of Evidence for Supernatural things (such as the fact that no scientific study has discovered even a smear of chocolate anywhere from those sprinkles).Fascinating. It feels very close to Box 3.A List of every item in the current scientific model of this observed universe (noting parenthetically that no item in this list needs any supernatural thing about it) would be an immense document way too big to fit in this forum. But it is a List of Evidence.I'm voting a Box 3 entry here.What does the rest of the audience think?

---

- xongsmith

Hi again bluegenes, Thanks for making my point that the inclusion of pseudoprobabilities by Dawkins makes people focus on the numbers and not the words. Notice that you have completely ignored the words.The important part of the definition of "4" for me is "Completely impartial agnostic" as that matches what Truzzi says in the OPNow, unless you can actually demonstrate that there is some valid objective method to calculate the actual probabilities of these different positions - nobody else has - then you should agree that calling them "probabilities" is really meaningless subjective personal opinion rather than objective measurements. Capiche? bold and color for emphasis.So on your question of omphalism:Claim: omphalism is true. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."Claim: omphalism is false. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."The only logical position is impartial agnostic ... unless you have evidence. No, the true skeptic takes the agnostic position because neither "X" NOR "notX" are supported with evidence. Taking a position is not what makes you a pseudoskeptic, what makes you a pseudoskeptic is making a claim without supporting it with evidence.So IF you are truly a "6" (strong atheist) on omphalism, then where is your objective verifiable evidence that demonstrates that it actually IS "highly unlikely"?What is your test for discontinuity between the actual and the god-did-it part of reality? What are your results? I am saying that anyone who claims that their conclusion is more rational than the agnostic position needs to show why they think that.The atheist agnostic and the theist agnostic that claim that there is not enough evidence to make a claim, but express a personal opinion of what they believe, are still predominantly in the agnostic camp - agnostic first, atheist of theist second.The strong atheist (or theist) is atheist (or theist) first and agnostic second, distant second or non-existent second.One does not need to justify belief, however one also needs to recognize that it IS belief and not a rational derived conclusion.And it is not a rational derived conclusion when it is not supported by objective evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the belief is likely to be true -- ie tested scientifically So? Does that really limit his argument about pseudoskeptics in any way?Do we now move to ad hominem attacks on Truzzi when you can't find evidence to support your claim? Denial is like that. I guess you DO think that I wasted time with that thread when I could have made the argument like yours as I posted on Message 445:

quote:

---

Now, what your argument is like would be if I had claimed that I don't need to provide evidence for the earth being older than 400,000 years, because there are an "effectively infinite number" of ages between 0 and 400,000 so the probability of it being any chosen age is infinitesimally small. Thus a younger earth is "extremely unlikely, as it's one of an effectively infinite number of equally evidenceless propositions."

---

So did I waste my time on that thread when all I really needed to say (according to your argument) is that a younger earth is "highly unlikely" instead of providing the evidence?Really? Including the judgment that god/s are "highly unlikely" ...Thanks for demonstrating the fact that you are not suspending judment during the investigation, but are actively making a claim ...... so: got evidence?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) • • •

Yes - I was sloppy there, I meant it was a huge Absence of Evidence and, just looking at that singular result, it was not Presence of Evidence of a Universe with NO supernatural things in it. But then...well, you see my reply to your reply to LindaLou...the model working is Presence of Evidence in and of itself. The scientific method works. Everytime an experiment is demonstrated elsewhere and shown to be repeatable, it is evidence the model works.The fact that it works is also True for various Deist models. But they don't have sole possession of the evidence, do they?We would probably agree here that the YEC model does not work. Until it is detected, there is no difference. Does the Aether exist?

---

- xongsmith

Hi LindaLou, Not far off. Think of it this way:y = explanation/s of the experience based on worldview and subjective opinion of the evidenceb = whether or not it was an actual experience of some facet of god/sThe truth of b is independent of the truth of y, so all the pseudo-calculations of the probability of y are not relevant to the issue of the validity of b and we are left with the question of whether b is true or not.Say you can develop a machine like the god helmet and induce a religious experience.Does that mean that the actual religious experiences are not true experiences?Say you measure the patterns of a person thinking of any specific experience, say the color green, and then use the machine to replicate that pattern in another persons brain: does that mean that the first person's experience was not a real experience?If you get the same pattern for seeing green in a thousand people, does that mean that the color green experience is just a function of the brain causing that particular pattern to occur?If you get the same pattern for having a religious\spiritual experience in a thousand people, does that mean that the religious\spiritual experience is just a function of the brain causing that particular patter to occur?So the real question is whether (b) is a true experience not how probable (y) is or isn't. The discussion of different explanations for (y) is just smoke puffed up to replace a vacuum of evidence.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) • • •