Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

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


(1)
Message 510 of 562 (528755)
10-06-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by bluegenes
10-06-2009 4:10 PM


Any evidence FOR the proposition "gods are unlikely"? ANY AT ALL?
Hi bluegenes, this is getting tiresome.
Dawkins' scale: "4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' "
Ultimately your continued insistence on nit-picking a secondary argument is unproductive, off topic and irrelevant. The primary argument is from Truzzi and his definition of true skeptic. That this matches "Completely impartial agnostic" is all that is relevant to the thread.
Truzzi defines the "true skeptic" as one who " takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved." Atheism of the "6" variety on the Dawkins scale does not claim that the god hypothesis is disproved, neither does atheism claim to explain the ultimate origins of the universe and everything.
The problem is that you are still asserting that god/s are unlikely and that is a negative claim. On this claim the true skeptic would say "the claim is not proved rather than disproved" AND that if you claim a truth - that god/s are unlikely - you need to bear the burden of proof.
The "6" position is agnostic.
LOL
Over 500 posts on this thread and this is the best you can do? Special pleading anyone? Equivocation anyone?
This provides me with this humorous image:
Atheist: I'm an atheist, a "6" on Dawkins Skalea strong atheist, I believe that god/s are highly unlikely.
Skeptic: where's your evidence?
Atheist: I don't need to provide evidence because I'm an agnostic.
Skeptic: so you are not really an atheist?
Atheist: No I'm an atheist,
Skeptic: Why are you an atheist?
Atheist: because there is all kinds of evidence that shows that god/s are unlikely
Skeptic: where's your evidence?
Atheist: I don't need to provide evidence because I'm an agnostic.
and on it goes, post after post after post.
Yes. See above. And why aren't you a "complete agnostic" on the proposition "gods are highly unlikely"? Got evidence against it?
But I am agnostic about it, it certainly is NOT PROVEN, nor has it been proven. I am not claiming that your assertion is wrong, but that it is UNSUPPORTED.
As an agnostic deist my primary position is that we don't know, that there is insufficient information to know or form a logical conclusion. I believe there may be gods, but I don't assert that this is true or even necessarily likely, it's just what I believe, my opinion, my entirely subjective analysis, and I do not try to convince a single other person that my personal view is true.
... but you'd probably treat it as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, ...
Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in.
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 496 by bluegenes, posted 10-06-2009 4:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by bluegenes, posted 10-07-2009 5:31 AM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 513 of 562 (528760)
10-06-2009 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by kjsimons
10-06-2009 8:55 PM


Re: For all pratical purposes
Welcome to the thread Kisimons,
So RAZD are you really agnostic to orbiting teapots or not.
Why don't you read my posts and see if you can answer that question.
I don't see how dismissing somebody elses claim for something that they have no evidence for is asserting a negative position that I need to back up with evidence of my own. I'm not trying to refute the claim, I'm just making a practical decision to ignore/dimiss an unevidenced claim until there is evidence for it.
Dismissing (if you really need to) someone else's claim because it is not proven is not the issue here.
Making a claim that X is unlikely, though is different - it is asserting a relative truth, and this assertion needs to be supported.
Most people live their lives on the practical assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (until there is further evidence to refute it).
Most people live their lives based on assumptions of what is true based on their personal world view of reality, whether that world view includes gods or not, and on the assumption that the world will continue to behave according to their personal world view of how reality behaves. This has no bearing on the actual truth of any of the world views involved, and nobody has an inside track on what reality actuall includes.
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 512 by kjsimons, posted 10-06-2009 8:55 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 10:26 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 514 of 562 (528761)
10-06-2009 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Modulous
10-06-2009 8:54 PM


Re: probability problems continue
Hi Modulus, getting down to the end issue?
Agreed.
Correct. You keep saying this like I've disagreed with you about it or something. It's quite odd.
Yes, they could. And both the mechanical explanation and CIA poisoning could be occurring at the same time. This is perfectly in line with the argument I'm making - do you think it isn't?
Indeed. So - of all the possible things you could be experiencing (moon rays, CIA poison, aliens, Cartesian demons...) what are the chances any one of them is right if we assume that one of them is? I mean - we are going to have to essentially guess here, and you've guessed that god is preferred. I think your guess is no better than rolling a die, or interpreting entrails. Could you explain why this is not the case, if your choice is better?
So the fact remains that we do not know if a religious or spiritual experience could be real or not, not one of these arguments shows that one is more likely than another, and there just is not sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that either X or notX is true.
Neither position is proven
Neither position is invalidated
The logical position is that "we don't know" or the agnostic position.
Which question, exactly, does it not answer?
Whether or not the experience is a true experience of a religious or spriritual nature. This could be true in either pile.
And then you go on to answer it 'no.'
Read it again:
quote:
Curiously, I have answered that, and I am agnostic on it: why would you assume that I would change my position since Message 179, Message 197, Message 427, Message 445, and Message 478?
quote:
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.

There is no "no" there.
You suggest that you do not hold that omphalism is true and you suggest that you also do not hold that omphalism is false.
The question is - why do you decide to not hold that it is true? Why does it matter that there is no evidence? It could be true, right?
Either could be true, each is unproven, each is not disproven, each is not supported by sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt whether they are true or not.
If it is true, then it is true.
If it is false, then it is false.
And we won't know until we have evidence that demonstrates one or the other.
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 511 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 8:54 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 9:56 PM RAZD 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

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

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


(1)
Message 541 of 562 (529291)
10-08-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by onifre
10-07-2009 5:06 PM


Hi Onifre, 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 526 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 5:06 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by onifre, posted 10-08-2009 7:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 542 of 562 (529292)
10-08-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by kjsimons
10-06-2009 8:55 PM


Re: For all pratical purposes
Hi kisimons, 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.

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 512 by kjsimons, posted 10-06-2009 8:55 PM kjsimons has not replied

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


(1)
Message 543 of 562 (529293)
10-08-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Kitsune
10-05-2009 8:10 AM


Re: probability problems
Hi LindaLou, 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 469 by Kitsune, posted 10-05-2009 8:10 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Kitsune, posted 10-09-2009 3:02 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 544 of 562 (529294)
10-08-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by New Cat's Eye
09-30-2009 11:25 PM


Re: The "Null Hypothesis" Argument
Hi Catholic Scientist, 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 378 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-30-2009 11:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(1)
Message 545 of 562 (529296)
10-08-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
09-19-2009 5:00 PM


Summary Time (and the livin is easy)
Hi AdminNosy, I'll use this for a general call to post summaries for this topic, asking that each person only post one summary and make no further replies.
I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
I am asking people to provide their summary of how they have answered the OP.
Any other issues need to be taken to a new thread.
The topic was repeated in Message 232:
quote:
Message 1
quote:
Taking these three statements:
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .
People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position.
Message 199
quote:
Curiously THE TOPIC is providing evidence for any negative hypothesis is just as much of a burden as providing evidence for a positive hypothesis.
  • strong atheists - predominantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7), has a negative hypothesis based on evidence. Bears burden to show evidence.
  • agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5), has a neutral hypothesis with a belief that a negative hypothesis MAY be true based on subjective opinion.
  • agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4), has a neutral hypothesis, that more evidence is needed before a rational decision can be made.
  • agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3), has a neutral hypothesiswith a belief that a positive hypothesis MAY be true based on subjective opinion.
  • strong theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2), has a positive hypothesis based on evidence. Bears burden to show evidence.
Negative claim = burden to show evidence or proof of the claim.
Positive claim = burden to show evidence or proof of the claim.
Neutral claim = no burden, and no assertion that pro or con is necessarily truer than the other.
This isn't about positive claims, but about the burden of proof\substantiation for negative claims.
A pseudoskeptic claims something is true (pro or con) that is not supported by the evidence.
Atheism is one example of a negative claim. Other examples have been provided, such as the claim that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old Message 427:
quote:
It is possible to have a negative hypothesis that is not a response to a particular positive claim. For example I can claim that the earth is not younger than 400,000 years. I am not aware of anyone claiming that the age is anywhere close to this number, and what we have is X is NOT less than 400,000 years as the negative claim that now needs to stand alone on it's own merits.
To be a valid claim, I need to provide evidence or a logical proof to show why the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years, or this claim rates as a pseudoskeptic claim.
The evidence I can show is on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 2, Message 3, Message 4, Message 5, Message 6, Message 7, Message 8, Message 20, and Message 21. The evidence doesn't stop there, but that is sufficient to establish that the earth is not less than 400,000 years.
Thus evidence is provided that does establish reasonable grounds for accepting the argument that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old.
Thus each summary should provide a similar example of evidence and logic to support other negative claims.
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 2 by AdminNosy, posted 09-19-2009 5:00 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by bluegenes, posted 10-09-2009 8:47 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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