|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4834 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: Indeed, but you have conveniently ignored the most salient point:
Briterican writes: there is a substantial amount of empirical evidence that points towards a universe that moves forward on fixed laws that do not require a controlling agency You have based your argument on a premise that there is no evidence when the reality of the situation is that there are literally mountains of evidence. We have a model that works without these chocolate sprinkles you keep insisting we consider. Why? Where is your evidence that they are required? So far, all the evidence we have indicates that they are not needed and don't exist. That's how we got the model in the first place: We took all the evidence that we have and created a system that is consistent with everything we have seen and has been pretty good at predicting what we will see when we haven't encountered it yet. Where is your evidence that there is something wrong? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? You insist there is no evidence while ignoring the fact that you're drowning in it. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD, I have a challenge for you.
Let's see if you can go for a whole month without accusing anybody of "cognitive dissonance" or some variant on that phrase. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:quote: But you just said you didn't. Straggler asked you if you thought his concept existed and you said you didn't know. The concept was cheese. But now you say you do know that cheese exists in direct contradiction to your previous statement that you didn't know. Were you lying before? Does the term "meta" hold any meaning for you? Have you read Godel, Escher, Bach? There is the discussion that we have that is directly connected to the topic and then there is the discussion that we have regarding the discussion. That latter is known as the "meta-discussion." You are conflating the "I don't know" of the former with the "I don't know" of the latter. That is, you do know what your opinion is regarding cheese. What you don't know is that cheese is what is being discussed. Thus, when Straggler asked you your opinion regarding his undefined concept, he was asking you a direct question about knowing about cheese but you responded as if you were being asked a meta-discussion question about knowing that cheese was being discussed. That is, there is the question: Do you believe in concept X? Then there is the question: Do you know what concept X is? You were asked the former question. The answer to that question is, "Yes," but you said, "I don't know." That's because you answered as if you were asked the latter question. They are not the same. Since you were being asked a direct question when the only information you had was the meta-discussion, the proper answer was, "I can't say what my opinion regarding X is until it is defined." This would be a meta-meta-discussion. I daresay that it's a bit of a linguistic equivalent of Russell's Paradox.
quote: So you're agnostic about cheese? You just said you do know that it exists and now you say you aren't sure. Which is it?
quote: But you just said you do know that cheese exists and now you say you weren't sure. Which is it?
quote: That when you were asked a direct question about whether you thought cheese existed, you said, "I don't know." That's what's ridiculous. Again, you were asked a direct question but you answered as if you were asked a meta-question. They are not the same. You were asked, "Do you believe it exists?" but you answered as if you were asked, "Do you know what it is?"
quote: Yes. But rather than saying, "I can't tell you what my opinion is because I don't know what you're talking about," you instead responded, "I don't know." Since the question you were asked was, "Do you believe in concept X," your answer is applying to your belief in X, not your understanding of what X is.
quote: Huh? You knew what Straggler was talking about and yet you still said, "I don't know," indicating that you weren't sure about the existence of cheese? How can anybody have any opinion at all, even the precious "I don't konw" that RAZD wants everyone to have, regarding a concept that hasn't been defined?
quote: So you don't know whether cheese exists? But you just said that you do. Which is it? You continue to conflate the question of "Do you believe that X exists?" with the question of "Do you know what X is?" You were asked the former. You answered the latter.
quote: Precisely! And yet, rather than saying, "I don't know what you're talking about so I cannot tell you whether or not I believe in X," you said, "I don't know." Well, Straggler was talking about cheese and thus your response was that you didn't know if cheese existed. That's ridiculous. Clearly, you do know. You've just said that you do. And yet, when you were asked a direct question about it, you said, "I don't know."
quote: The problem is that you didn't answer the question that you were asked. You answered a completely different question.
quote: That's the entire point! But you weren't asked if you lacked the knowledge about the undefined concept. You were asked if you believed in the undefined concept. You were asked, "Do you believe in X?" You answered as if you were asked, "Do you know what X is?" Those are not the same question. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
quote: (*snort!*) Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. The cognitive dissonance you've been vomiting all over thousands of posts has been quite telling.
quote: Indeed, and if there were ever a case where "the available evidence is inconclusive," you'd have a point. But so far, the only instances that have come forward have been ones where there is literally thousands of years worth of evidence or a concept that has yet to be defined and thus no position is possible, not even your precious "I don't know." You keep asking me to tell you what my "model" is. And I keep responding that I'll define it when you define what you mean by "god." Frustrating, isn't it? Oh, the internal angst you must be feeling regarding the cognitive dissonance you have pouring through you as you try to defend what you can't even define. See how silly it sounds when someone tries to psychoanalyze you over the internet?
quote: Hardly. And that is the source of your intellectual meltdown. He has pointed out that your premise is based on a fallacy and rather that simply accept this fact, your cognitive dissonance is forcing you to continue to defend that which you can't define. Shall we continue with the remote psychoanalysis? You, like CS, have confused the question of "Do you believe in X?" with the question of "Do you know what X is?" You have further actively denied actual evidence by simply ignoring it, falling into many common creationist fallacies. It would seem you are "uncomfortable" actually discussing that which you hold dear. Shall I try to read your mind to determine why or should I just continue to point out the errors in your logic and trust that you'll figure it out for yourself?
quote: And thus, you find yourself in the ridiculous position that CS finds himself, saying "I don't know about the existence of cheese. The available evidence regarding cheese is inconclusive." Is that what you're saying? There is no evidence regarding cheese? You have confused the question of "Do you believe in X?" with the question of, "Do you know what X is?" Those are not the same question. You were asked the former. You answered the latter.
quote: Indeed, but you have two problems. First, before we can even get off the ground, you have to tell us what X is. So far, you have steadfastly refused to do so (and shall I try to psychically determine why that is or should I realize that I don't know you from Adam and attempts at plumbing the depths of your soul would be foolish at best?) Second, you ignore all the evidence that is in front of you in a miasma of creationist handwaving. There is no difference between your argument and the perennial claim by creationists that "There are no transitional fossils!"
quote: So you're agnostic about cheese? That's what you were directly asked: Do you believe that cheese exists? And here you are, saying you don't know and that the only possible rational answer is to say you don't know. You were not asked if you knew what cheese was. You were asked if you thought cheese existed. So it would appear that you aren't sure. "The evidence is inconclusive." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: And yet, if you were to ask them to define what "god" is, you'd never get the same answer twice. God's kinda like obscenity: Can't define it, but you know it when you see it. Are you seriously claiming that the "god" that is referred to by any random Mulsim is the same concept as the "god" that is referred to by any random Jew? That the Ancient Greeks would have any idea what a Mayan meant? That the Hindu conceptualization of "aspects of god" could be reconciled with the Christian concept of the triune "god"?
quote: Said the person who still refuses to define what on earth he's talking about and has confused "Do you believe in X?" with "Do you know what X is?" so that he can get a precious "I don't know" from those he accuses of suffering from "cognitive dissonance" in their "pseudo-skepticism." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
quote: He claims the model is incomplete. Therefore, it must have chocolate sprinkles. He claims that there is no evidence when the model is specifically created from all the evidence there is and works without that which he claims is missing or at the very least needs to be seriously considered as if the evidence didn't exist. Unless and until he can show his evidence to support his negative claim regarding the functionality of the model, he is the very "pseudo-skeptic" he is accusing everyone else of being. The model works.
quote: Oh? RAZD claims a certain direction, but he has yet to define what it is that he's talking about. Therefore, the problem is even worse: His precious "I don't know" makes no logical sense because there is no defintion of what he doesn't know about. Thus, he cannot claim "I don't know for the evidence is inconclusive." Evidence of what? He refuses to say. If he can't say what it is, how can he claim that the "evidence" for it is inconclusive? How on earth can he even know what evidence there is?
quote: But the model doesn't require it and the null hypothesis rules it out until evidence is brought forward that indicates it is required. RAZD refuses to show his evidence or even define what he's talking about.
quote: What don't you know? What are you talking about? That is not a facetious question. How can you claim that you don't know about something if you are unable to tell us what it is? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
xongsmith responds to me:
quote: Ahem. What do you think "incomplete" means? It means that there is something missing. I have decided to call this something that is missing "chocolate sprinkles."
quote: No, but not because I have evidence that it is, as such. Instead, I think so because I don't think we're clever enough to have figured it out and our process can never know if we have managed to do it. Observational processes never let you proclaim absolute truth. The best it can hope for is to claim that it is consistent with all known observations.
quote: I know that the Higgs is often nicknamed the "god particle," but somehow I don't think that's what RAZD means when he refers to "god." In essence, RAZD is simply playing an elaborate game of "god of the gaps." This is part of the "evidence" he claims doesn't exist: Every single time we've gone investigating, we have found physical reasons for phenomena. So where is his evidence that this time is going to be any different? Null hypothesis remains valid until evidence comes along to discredit it.
quote: Occam's Razor is a philosophical position. The Null Hypothesis is an actual mathematical process.
quote: Irrelevant. It is because of the model that we have the very computer you're typing on. Newtonian physics is wrong. At every level, every speed, every answer that it gives is wrong. However, given the objects and speeds we typically find ourselves working with, the difference between the answer it gives and the "real" answer is so small that you would need outrageously sensitive equipment in order to detect it. So yes, we make assumptions, but even with those assumptions we get something that actually works. And when we find those assumptions don't work, we change them with the new observations in order to get a model that works. So far, we haven't found the chocolate sprinkles doing anything let alone existing.
quote: Because the new ones are based upon implications of the rainbow sprinkles we already have.
quote: Perhaps. But what's the difference between that and nothingness itself? Again, if god can do it, why can't the universe?
quote: If it is undescribed, how can we possibly assign a probability to it? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
xongsmith responds to me:
quote:quote: That doesn't answer the question. What do you mean by "supernatural"? All you've done is replace one undefined term with another. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: Huh? You don't see any evidentiary difference between an undefined term that has never been observed and a living creature we have a fossil record of? That the scenario of an extant creature might have been lost track of is identical to the scenario of an entity that has never been observed has been hiding all this time? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
xongsmith responds to me:
quote:quote: No. No, I don't. I'm not the one making the claim that the chocolate sprinkles are required. Defining what the means is the responsibility of the one claiming that they are needed. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
xongsmith responds to me:
quote: And you don't see any difference between the two? We have a method that self-corrects. This observational method requires that we account for all the observations we've made before. Compare this to those who advocate for the chocolate sprinkles which ends up insisting that we toss out what we have observed and start over.
quote: But nothing about relativity required us to toss out any of our previous observations. Instead, it needed to take them into account. It needed to explain why objects seemed to move in a linear fashion. Just as Newtonian mechanics needed to explain why objects seemed to move in an Aristotelian fashion. No matter how far afield we go from Aristotle's claim that the natural state of an object is rest, we need to explain why it is that when I slide a book along the table, it comes to a stop. Apples do not hover in mid-air waiting for us to figure out how gravity works before falling.
quote: Um, the former was an observation, the latter was a prediction. At any rate, do you not see the difference? We could see the movement of Mercury. And our process for figuring out planetary motion became more and more accurate over time without adding chocolate sprinkles. In fact, it was the removal of chocolate sprinkles that allowed us to get a handle on how they moved.
quote: But the reason that we were getting hints of GR was because of evidence. Where's the evidence of the chocolate sprinkles?
quote: What does that have to do with anything? We have one process that has been extremely successful and another system that is continually being tossed out and starting over from scratch. Why would anybody rationally consider them to be equally likely?
quote: And if you can't even define what you're looking for, how can you possibly make any statement about it at all, even RAZD's precious "I don't know"?
quote: And we've learned nothing in the process? We're still naifs when it comes to how this deck actually works? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
xongsmith responds to me:
quote: You're still missing the point: You don't see any difference between a process that has proven results and a process that has never had any? The predictive claims of each are to be equally considered? This is the "evidence" that RAZD keeps insisting doesn't exist. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: But it isn't for them to define "god" and then do away with it. It is up to those who claim that god exists to define it and then we can work to see if it there is any evidence supporting its existence. If you can't describe it, there's no basis to insist upon its existence, even as a hypothetical. What are you talking about when you say "god," RAZD? The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have any evidence that they are required? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
xongsmith responds to me:
quote: I don't have to know what is being demanded to know that something is being demanded. The model works. RAZD says there's something missing. He won't say what is missing or justify that claim. Instead, he claims that those who observe the model and notice that it works don't actually have any evidence of that fact and are "pseudo-skeptics" for daring to ask that those who wish to declare problems actually provide evidence regarding the specifics of what is missing.
quote: Then I'm confused. If it looks good to you, why do you seem to be confused regarding it? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
xongsmith responds to me:
quote: On the contrary, RAZD is precisely who is. By insisting that we abandon all of the evidence we have in order to insist "there is no evidence" and preserve his precious "I don't know."
quote: Yes, by those who understand how the process of discovery works. The original assumption necessarily is that nothing exists. All claims for existence of any kind must be justified by evidence before being accepted. But for RAZD, he wants to take all of that and throw it away, claiming that there is no evidence of any kind, that any stray crossing thought is just as legitimate as any other. It turns epistemology on its head.
quote: But according to RAZD, the idea that the undetectable, undefined Voorwerp gnome is just as rational an explanation as the idea that it's a celestial phenomenon, as if all the other knowledge we have about the cosmos didn't exist. Never mind that we have seen astronomical objects behave in similar ways. None of that is actual evidence or can be included in the analysis. No, the only "rational" response in his mind is "agnosticism" and his precious "I don't know."
quote: Until RAZD defines what on earth he's talking about, there's no way to know.
quote:quote: Indeed. But RAZD insits we throw out all that we have observed and start over again at 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024