Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 526 of 562 (528964)
10-07-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by xongsmith
10-07-2009 11:14 AM


One of the reasons I want to leave this as a cloud is exactly to address people trying to stuff it with nonsense.
Like a supernatural, unknown entity that made the universe and then left it alone?
When are the description not considered nonsense?
Clearly the group isn't ready to make a consensus definition of the supernatural.
Then the word supernatural tentatively means nothing... so no one really holds a negative position, right?
The purpose of putting stuff in there is to get it out of the way of the other issue, which is finding a way to formulate how one would devise a scientific test to demonstrate the Presence of Evidence for a Universe with NO Supernatural things.
It seems like we're trying to find evidence to disprove the existance of an undefined term (supernatural).
We don't even know what supernatural means, how can we begin to devise a method to investigate it?
This was my issue with the OP. Tuzzi said people reject things without investigating it. Well that would be fine, but when no method exists to investigate it, and no one can even come to a consensus on what "it" is, then no one is really rejecting anything and Tuzzi's point is moot.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 11:14 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 8:40 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 541 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:35 PM onifre has replied

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


(1)
Message 527 of 562 (529011)
10-07-2009 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 10:26 PM


Re: For all practical purposes
Hi xongsmith,
Number of RAZD Posts: 10,877 and steadily climbing
Good lord, man. That could take a very long time!
Some of them ramble on for pages & pages.
Actually I meant in just this thread, so that reduces it to 108 posts at this time. You can use the new feature to filter for "RAZD posts only" and then use the browser search for "teapot" or whatever, as this filter usually lists all the posts by said person on one page (at least that is my experience, I'm set for 100 posts per page and it still shows all of mine on one page).
Note to Percy - can we have an "ignore smilies" option?
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 516 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 10:26 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 8:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 528 of 562 (529012)
10-07-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by onifre
10-07-2009 5:06 PM


This was my issue with the OP. Tuzzi said people reject things without investigating it. Well that would be fine, but when no method exists to investigate it, and no one can even come to a consensus on what "it" is, then no one is really rejecting anything and Tuzzi's point is moot.
How about Rrhain's observation? Consider this hypothesis: There are no supernatural things in the Universe now or ever. Rrhain observes that the scientific method for testing this hypothesis out has been checking this hypothesis out. There has been no falsification of the hypothesis. Every time a scientific experiment using the scientific method is repeated around the world, it is evidence supporting the hypothesis. It works.
Since there a many flavors of Deism that are also 100% supported by the "model" (as Rrhain terms it), this evidence is not as useful as it could be. But it is useful. For example, if RAZD were to stumble (he wont, but if he were) and claim there's still no one putting up any evidence for the '6' or '7' hypothesis, we can point to this tidbit. We haven't been shut out by the opposing pitcher. I know, it's not much....
What we need is evidence that supports hypotheses with NO Supernatural things, but falsifies all of hypotheses that allow for something supernatural.
That is where we have a major problem.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 5:06 PM onifre has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 529 of 562 (529014)
10-07-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by RAZD
10-07-2009 8:38 PM


Re: For all practical purposes
Note to Percy - can we have an "ignore smilies" option?
That would be fine with me, too.
Yeah, I really flaunted my ignorance there.
But I did have fun with those smilies....

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2009 8:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 530 of 562 (529059)
10-08-2009 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 11:36 AM


xongsmith responds to me:
quote:
This thread is not about detecting "god". This thread is about providing evidence for negative hypotheses. The credibility issue you refer to is off topic.
Incorrect. The credibility issue is precisely the topic: RAZD wants his unevidenced, undetectable, undefined vagueness to be given more stature and respect than the mountain of evidence that indicates that it isn't there.
As I said way back in my very first post in this thread:
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.
I still stand by that. Of course claims of non-existence require justification. But the running lunacy of those falling into RAZD's camp is that there exists a scenario in which there is no evidence. This might be the case when a concept is first presented, but nature abhors a vacuum and evidence quickly fills in.
This is why the null hypothesis is assumed to be true: There is nothing but evidence that the status quo works. That's why it's the status quo. The reason we have the model is because we have observed the world around us and developed a system that describes it as accurately as we can.
Thus, it is up to the person claiming that something is missing to show evidence, not the other way around. We already have the evidence to explain why it isn't there.
quote:
But there are some Deists who have effectively claimed that the Big Bang was the last supernatural event.
But they need to show the evidence for it, otherwise it's just another unevidenced, undetectable, undefined vagueness. The other side is simply, "We don't know." We've certainly got a lot of interesting ideas, but they need to be tested before any real claim can be made.
quote:
And thus the scientific model works for them
Incorrect. They are claiming chocolate sprinkles without providing justification for why.
quote:
I'm not sure that was his position. Can you cite that?
You have read this thread, haven't you? At the very least his opening post?
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position
This is a bogus argument. It is predicated upon a scenario that doesn't exist: The complete absence of all evidence. But there is always 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 491 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 11:36 AM xongsmith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 531 of 562 (529061)
10-08-2009 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by RAZD
10-06-2009 4:42 PM


RAZD responds to me:
quote:
My impression was that Einstein said that it showed that there was no aether effect, but not that the aether did not exist.
From what I read, his original claim was that it was experimental error.
quote:
Another possibility is that your hypothesis of what should show up is in error.
But that just pushes everything back one level. Do you have any evidence that the expected result is mistakenly described? You've just fallen into your own argument: You need to provide justification for your negative claim.
quote:
For instance the Coelacanth: the absence of evidence for over 60 million years was not evidence of the absence of the Coelacanth from the living world, but evidence of people looking in the wrong place.
Which only proves the point: It is incumbent upon the person claiming that there is something missing to provide evidence that it is there. I'm hardly saying that the model is perfect. But if you're going to deny it, you need to show your evidence for why.
quote:
Yes, because your hypothesis for what should show up could be faulty.
Where's your evidence for that? You're making a claim, so where is your justification?
quote:
In science, when an experiment fails to produce an expected result the hypothesis is revised.
Indeed: Rejection of the alternative hypothesis and acceptance of the null.
But you're working under the premise that there is a problem with the model.
Do you have evidence to justify that claim? The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
What's your evidence.
The model works and it doesn't include your chocolate sprinkles. So why do you demand them? Where is your evidence that something is missing?

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 498 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 4:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:27 PM Rrhain has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 532 of 562 (529073)
10-08-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by xongsmith
10-07-2009 2:28 PM


Omphalism and Other Matters
The fact remains that RAZD is blatantly unable to apply the criteria he is insisting upon to demonstrate that skepticism is justified with regard to anything immaterial and undetectable at all. Including those things that we all agree are "nonsense" (e.g. immaterial toilet goblins). As such he doesn't really have a leg to stand on calling anybody a "pseudoskeptic" with regard to anything more contentious.
His criteria and the very premise of his entire thread are just flawed nonsense. It amounts to declaring that we should be utterly agnostic to absolutely anything which cannot be outright disproven. Which is why he is now tying himself in knots over what he is and is not agnostic towards and on the brink of embracing Young Earth Creationist notions of omphalism for heavens sake!! (see his conversation with Bluegenes)
Xongsmith writes:
It isn't a defense of how rational your position is, it's a demand for Evidence.
Are the two not the same?
Xongsmith writes:
Now, if you argue that you are not using the Absence of Evidence to determine for you that it's "Highly Unlikely" then you are either making a very well-opinionated guess or you are relying on some Presence of Evidence, in which case I'd like to know what it is.
It is all about which possibilities are evidenced and which are not.
Based on the objective evidence alone the possibility of human invention is exceptionally well evidenced. Whereas the possibility of gods actually existing is not evidenced at all. On top of this you have the ever diminishing ever retreating god of the gap argument:
Straggler writes:
"Somethingsupernaturaldidit" is not the enlightened, open minded path to understanding reality you seem to think it is. It is in fact the very opposite. As evidenced by human history and the steady march of scientific understanding at the expense of superstitious mysticism. How much more evidence do you need?
Message 436
And finally you have the probability argument that Mod initiated and advocated most eloquently. An argument which RAZD is unable to confront without getting into the circular position of citing belief itself as evidence upon which to justify belief.
Xongsmith writes:
We decide by consensus, I guess.
By consensus the Earth was flat and at the centre of the universe in the face of evidence to the contrary. By a fairly large consensus evolution remains a conspiratorial myth. I would suggest that going with the available objective evidence rather than the unthinking consensus is the demonstrably more reliable, and thus rational, approach.
Straggler writes:
How much more evidence do you need?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 2:28 PM xongsmith has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 533 of 562 (529086)
10-08-2009 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by RAZD
10-06-2009 4:42 PM


My Coelacanth And Other Animals
For instance the Coelacanth:
Do you really think that the existence of the Coelacanth is analagous to the existence of immaterial gods? Do you honestly not see the evidential difference?
The fact that we have not scoured every conceivable habitat when combined with our knowledge of life on Earth and it's adaptability to environment suggests that we would be fools to think that we had witnessed every possible form of life in existence on this planet. In short the possibility of "unexpected" species existing is highly objectively evidenced. The surprises will relate to the detailed specifics of what we actually find.
In contrast the existence of god (either in terms of the specifics or the ambiguously undefined conceptual generality that you seem to prefer) remains utterly, completely, totally and wholly unevidenced. As does the existence of any godly "habitat". Even as a possibility.
Your attempt to equate the generic concept of god with the specifics of the coalcanth is a disengenuous debating tactic. A more justifiable analogy would be to compare the evidence in favour of the possibility of god (i.e. the generic concept) existing with the evidence in favour of as yet undiscovered species (i.e. the generic concept) existing. A comparison which shows the stark contrast in evidence rather than the equivalence you were seeking to demonstrate.
If all the examples you are going to cite involve equating an "absence of evidence" restricted to a highly specific instance of a wider and highly evidenced concept with an "absence of evidence" for an entire concept class (i.e. "god") then maybe you should consider the possibility that your examples are unjustified and your arguments flawed.
There is no such thing as a vacuuum of all objective evidence RAZ. When are you going accept this fact?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 4:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 534 of 562 (529152)
10-08-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by xongsmith
10-07-2009 2:28 PM


xongsmith writes:
Maybe this example will help. A vacuum box with sensors and windows and a special door. We can measure to our hearts content with the sensors and windows that the inside has reached vacuum. There is NOTHING in it. All our sensors & windows provide us with is the Absence of Evidence of something in the box.
Now to the special door. It's equipped to measure the airflow rushing in when it is opened in a well-known way. A prediction can be made on a whole raft of characteristics of the air flow if it is true that the inside in a vacuum. The door is opened, the data taken and - lo - the air flow behaved exactly the way we predicted it would if the inside was a vacuum. This is Presence of Evidence of nothing inside. I think this is the kind of evidence RAZD wants '6's and '7' to come up with. Not anything off those gauges and laser measurements on the sealed vacuum box.
No, the air rushing in is not "Presence of Evidence". Air molecules interact by bouncing off each other, and the force of their bounce on the walls of the enclosure is measured as pressure. This pressure is of course commonly caused either by temperature speeding them up, or the weight of the air above pushing them along. Standard atmospheric pressure is 14.696 pounds per square inch (PSI).
When you open the valve and the air rushes in, it simply indicates that the air is not bumping into anything. You already knew this from your basic air pressure gauge inside the box failing to register any collisions (pressure) inside the box. It is "Absence of Evidence" for the presence of air.
The real crux of the issue is the wishy-washy nature of the terminology you are determined to use. Those terms are *garbage*; the fact that you looked for air and could not detect any within the chamber is evidence for the conclusion that there is no air inside the chamber, plain and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 2:28 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 535 of 562 (529277)
10-08-2009 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Modulous
10-06-2009 9:56 PM


omphallic issues
Hi Modulus,
I am not asking if RAZD believes omphalism to be false.
I am not asking RAZD if he thinks it can be known.
I am not asking RAZD if he thinks he does know.
I am merely asking RAZD if he has accepted a belief in omphalism. Does RAZD hold the belief that omphalism is true? Is RAZD a '2' on Omphalism?
No.
Curiously I've been thinking more about what omphalism really means: that god/s created the universe at some stage of development, and that it has proceeded afterward according to the rules set out by such gods, rules that are also incorporated into the evidence of stuff before the point of creation, such that there is no discernible point where one can be able to point to and say "after this is real, before this is illusion" and which also control how things will continue to occur after (now).
Thus any hypothesis based on evidence that includes any mixture of {before} and {after} will provide the same degree of accuracy in making predictions independent of where the breakpoint lies.
The breakpoint could be the formation of the universe (results in deism), it could be 6000 years ago (results in YEC earth, but still with flood problems) or it could be last thursday. We don't know.
Do I think it is true? Possible, but there is insufficient information to say.
Do I think it is false? Possible, but there is insufficient information to say.
The possibility that the breakpoint could be the point between time and notime for this universe would be consistent with deism, but that would be my personal opinion. As such you could put me down as a weak "3" - weak theistic agnostic - at most. Certainly not a 2.
However, this still does not resolve the issue of this thread:
That people who make a negative claim bear a burden to demonstrate the evidence and logic to show that their claim is a rational conclusion rather than just their world view opinion.
It seems to me that the argument/s have run their course, and I do not see any resolution any time soon.
As such I ask you to provide your summary post to this thread, and we can end the debate with an agreement to disagree, an inconclusive result.
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 515 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 9:56 PM Modulous 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 536 of 562 (529278)
10-08-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by bluegenes
10-07-2009 5:31 AM


Re: Any evidence FOR the proposition "fairies are unlikely"? ANY AT ALL?
Hi bluegenes, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP.
If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 520 by bluegenes, posted 10-07-2009 5:31 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by bluegenes, posted 10-08-2009 7:02 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


Message 537 of 562 (529282)
10-08-2009 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by Straggler
10-07-2009 8:53 AM


Re: Denial II - The Revenge of The Deist
Hi Straggler, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP.
If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread.
Adding response to Message 533 so you only have to deal with one reply:
You can make all your assertions you want to in your summary post.
The problem you will have will be sticking to the topic and showing how you have actually answered the issue in the OP: the issue is NOT about the relative validity of various views, it is about the fact that when you make a claim it needs to be supported by evidence and valid logic. This is well accepted for positive claims, and thus this thread explores the same burden of proof\substantiation for negative claims. Atheism is just one example of such a negative claim (eg - there are no god/s), but belief/nonbelief is not what the thread is about.
It will be interesting to see if you answer the topic in your final post.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added

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 521 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2009 8:53 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2009 8:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 554 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2009 10:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 555 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2009 10:56 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 538 of 562 (529285)
10-08-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Stile
10-07-2009 9:55 AM


Re: Evidence that unevidenced concepts are highly unlikely
Hi Stile, sorry that you are coming in at the end here, but I don't see your argument as significantly different from others here. The issue is NOT about the relative validity of various views, it is about the fact that when you make a claim it needs to be supported by evidence and valid logic. This is well accepted for positive claims, and thus this thread explores the same burden of proof\substantiation for negative claims. Atheism is just one example of such a negative claim (eg - there are no god/s), but belief/nonbelief is not what the thread is about.
I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP.
If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

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 522 by Stile, posted 10-07-2009 9:55 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by Stile, posted 10-09-2009 9:52 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 539 of 562 (529286)
10-08-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by Rrhain
10-08-2009 4:04 AM


Hi Rrhain, the issue is NOT about the relative validity of various views, it is about the fact that when you make a claim it needs to be supported by evidence and valid logic. This is well accepted for positive claims, and thus this thread explores the same burden of proof\substantiation for negative claims. Atheism is just one example of such a negative claim (eg - there are no god/s), but belief/nonbelief is not what the thread is about.
I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP.
If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread.

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 531 by Rrhain, posted 10-08-2009 4:04 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 553 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2009 5:25 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 540 of 562 (529290)
10-08-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by xongsmith
10-07-2009 2:28 PM


Hi xongsmith, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP.
If you want to discuss other issues, please start a new thread.
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 525 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 2:28 PM xongsmith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024