Omphalism

Not according to actual advocates of omphalism it isn't. Any empirical evidence pertaining to the date prior to "creation" is deceptive and illusory as far as they are concerned. Actual omphalists deny the validity and veracity of empirical evidence and conclusions pre-creation date. I would have thought this much was indisputable by the very definition of omphalism? But see the links in msg 28 if you need evidence of this from actual omphalists themselves. Yes and I have asked you how much confidence you have in that form of evidence and that conclusion? On the basis of epystemological consistency. The basis on which we advocate empiricism is surely practical not philosophical? It works. It renders conclusions that are demonstrably and consistently superior to simply guessing. This is exactly the same basis on which I would advocate it’s consistent application in the face of omphalistic claims. The omphalist agrees that empiricism works going forwards but denies it’s validity beyond a certain point in the past (Last Thursday or whenever). The omphalist instead proposes some other method of "knowing" as a means by which to have drawn their conclusion regarding the true date of creation. But unless they can demonstrate that this form of knowing is reliable why should we treat their claim as any different to any other unfalsifiable human invented nonsense?For example: If a proponent of biblical omphalism was able to make testable predictions based on his interpretation of the bible dismissing his biblically derived omphalism would be unjustified. But if he cannot demonstrate the reliability of the epystemology upon which he is making his omphalistic claims then why would we do anything but dismiss them? So you are equally agnostic to any given omphalistic claim? Well I dispute the validity of that conclusion as well. Albeit on slightly different grounds.There are an infinite number of possible omphalisms. Biblical omphalism pertaining to < 10,000 years ago, Last Yearism, Last Monthism, Last Thursdayism, Last Wednesdayism, Yesterdayism, 1 hour agoism, Last Minutism, Last Secondism, Last 1.1 seconds agoism, Last 1.11 seconds agoism, Last 1.111 seconds agoism, Last 1.1111 seconds agoism etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad-infinitum. All omphalistic universes are indistinguishable from a non-omphalistic universe and from each other and there are an infinite number of them possible. So from a purely statistical point of view the chances of any particular claim of omphalism being correct are 1 out of infinity.Thus we can confidently say that it is deeply improbable that any specific omphalistic claim is correct. Do you agree?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

WTF? This entire discussion and this entire topic resulted from your assertion that we must necessarily be agnostic about all claims of "metaphysical truth". My entire point is that omphalists are not making a metaphysical claim. They are making a very physical claim. A claim about the length of time the universe has physically existed. If you are unable to state what the "metaphysical truth" omphalists are advocating actually is then you really have no argument whatsoever do you?

I have had a subjective experience and on the basis of this I have concluded that the universe was omphamistically created at 1AM on December the 12th 2009. All empirical evidence pertaining to any date prior to that is illusory and unreliable albeit internally consistent. Can you explain to me why the genuineness (or otherwise) of my belief in the validity of this subjective experience has any bearing on your agnosticism towards this conclusion?

If I actually believed you then I would begin discussing your subjective experience and how it lead you to conclude omphalism before moving away from my TAP agnosticism.

Why does the perceived genuineness of my belief have any bearing on your conclusion with regard to the evidential validity of Last Thursdayism?Seriously I don't get where you are coming from on this at all.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

My agnosticism is towards the claim, not the evidential validity.It regards to the evidential validity, we'd be PAP agnostic because we can't really know if its right or not. There's no way to test it.Although, I'm sure you're creative enought to come up with a tautology that will convince you there's an actual probability associated witht the claim that you can weigh against

Then on what basis do you judge the claim? How can we test any omphalistic claim? Yet you have already stated that you reject some (biblical ophalism), are PAP agnostic to others (no reason at all Last Thursdayism) and are TAP agnostic to others (Last Thursdayism concluded from the reading of cloud formations).Your form of agnosticism seems more like social response to what others claim to believe than an evidentially consistent conclusion of any sort. The last couple of times you have accused me of tautologies the ensuing discussion has resulted in the following:1) Agnosticism towards the existence of cheese
2) The claim that gods and dogs are equally evidenced Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The evidential validity. We just haven't gotten to the evidence yet. You can't test the philisophical possibility but you can test an evidenced conclusion. I still think you're trying to make it inconsistant. It seems consistant to me. I guess just keep asking honest questions if you care to understand.

Huh? Surely you can read this and see why it might seem nonsensical? Can you explain what on Earth you mean here? A form of evidence can only be considered as such if it is demonstrably superior to guessing in terms of reliability. Yes? I suspect that what you are advocating here might amount to citing belief as a form evidence in itself whether you realise it or not. But let's carry on and find out.

Yeah, to some extant. But not that its a form of evidence, just that if someone actually believes something, then I find that as more compelling to consider (i.e. approaching it with less skepticism) as an actual possibility than something somebody is just making up to make a point. You know what I mean? I figure, there has to be something that lead to their belief, so there should be something actual to consider, so there a greater possibility of them being on to something. But its more of a gut reaction, than some thought out methodology. I don't know and don't care that much. But I'm leaning towards no because not everything has the pleasure of being able to demonstrate superiority and also simply lacking a demonstration is saying much of anything about it. Someone makes a claim, I'm agnostic towards it. Then they provide the evidence, which I could also be agnostic towards. But if the evidence is convincing or not, then the agnosticism towards towards the evidence goes away and then the agnosticism towards the claim can be adjusted too.I posited agnosticism towards your claim and you jumped to asking about my agnosticism towards the evidence.

quote:

---

If I actually believed you then I would begin discussing your subjective experience and how it lead you to conclude omphalism before moving away from my TAP agnosticism {{towards the claim}}.

Why does the perceived genuineness of my belief have any bearing on your conclusion with regard to the evidential validity of Last Thursdayism?

---

See?

Hi, Straggler. Why do you assume that this is a simple or even a meaningful question?What confidence can I have in an epistemology?
And, what would give me that confidence? The fact that it produces useful, interpretable results?
How can that possibly have any bearing on the discussion here? It would produce useful, interpretable results in either scenario, so the ability to produce useful, interpretable results is not a means of distinguishing between the two epistemologies!----- No. This is wrong: omphalism doesn’t deny the validity of empirical conclusions. A conclusion is valid if it follows from its premises. And, since the premise of empirical study is that knowledge is defined by the physical evidence, the validity of its conclusions are not contingent on the realness of the physical evidence. So, empirical knowledge is the same in either scenario.Furthermore, the only kind of knowledge about which I can have any confidence under an empirical epistemology is empirical knowledge. But, when you bring omphalism into the equation, we’re no longer talking about empirical knowledge: we’re talking about some other kind of knowledge that simply doesn’t fall within the framework that empiricism can comment on.So, I can have any level of confidence imaginable in the knowledge I glean from empirical study, but this is empirical confidence in empirical knowledge, and does not transfer over to discussions about other types of knowledge, so your question about my confidence in my empirical conclusions is completely meaningless in the context of this discussion (but not, incidentally, within the context of other discussions).-----Now let me ask this question: in an omphalic universe, how could you know that empiricism works going forwards? Surely any knowledge we can generate about the present and the future is also, at best, empirical knowledge, gleaned from the exact same type of evidence of which knowledge of the past is made. If some entity is capable of doctoring past evidence, why is he not capable of doctoring present and future evidence?Surely evidence itself is epistemologically meaningless in omphalism, right? How can you expect me to bring my empirical epistemology into that fight? It's better to stay out of it. So, I just acknowledge that I don't have the tools to handle this, label myself "agnostic" to it, and go on contentedly dealing only with empirical knowledge.Edited by Bluejay, : "some entity"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

This entire discussion started with a question you raised in Message 137 in thread Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design. Yet now you say that I started it. And those words "must necessarily" are a complete invention. I was only expressing an opinion, and used "should". So now you seem to be taking an accusatory attitude on the basis of false charges you are making against me. They are making a claim that is quite deliberately exempt from any possibility of being examined by physics. Yet you say it is a physical claim.Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "physical."Edited by nwr, : No reason given.

Well on what basis do you deem any one epistemology as preferable or superior to any other? Why do you trust empirical conclusions over biblical omphalist conclusions regarding the age of the Earth? For example. Yes. The fact that it works. Because the omphalist is denying the validity of empirical evidence pertaining to all evidence prior to a certain date and instead claiming the validity of a rival form of knowing in order to deduce the "true" date of creation. That is the entire point of omphalism. The omphalist claims to have a non-empirical method of knowing the date of creation. Unless they can demonstrate that this method of knowing is reliable there is no rational reason to treat their claims as any different to any other unfalsifiable claim. Why is omphalism any more deserving of agnosticism than things like the IPU? ALL empirical conclusions? No. But a Last Thursdayist is by definition saying that evolution over billions of years is a false conclusion. Despite being empirically consistent. Because they are claiming that empirical evidence pertaining to the past is unreliable beyond last Thursday.If there is no conflict of epistemologies as you say then on what basis does the omphalist even arrive at a conclusion regarding the age of the universe that differs from the empirically evidenced conclusion? So how can you say that there is no conflict of epistemologies? Well maybe it can. But that is not omphalism as I understand it. What you have done is redefine omphalism into a sort of Descartesian evil demon type scenario where all empirical evidence is illusory. Does this matter? Yes. Because in your scenario (a sort of ongoing omphalistic version of the brain in a jar) all empirical evidence is illusory and there is no method of knowing anything beyond ones own current existence. Whilst omphalism (as I understand it) claims that empirical evidence works from a certain point (e.g. Last Thursday) but that another form of knowing is required to know when creation actually occurred. Empirical evidence? Yes. But omphalists claim to have an alternative form of evidence which is more reliable and from which they can deduce the date of creation. So - No an omphalist would not agree that all evidence is epistemologically meaningless in an omphalistic scenario. Hence the conflict of epistemologies. I don't. I am suggesting that having any confidence in methods of knowing that are incapable of demonstrating themselves to be even vaguely reliable is irrational. If what you are talking about here is some inherently indeterminate omphalistic equivalent of the philosophical brain in the jar scenario - Then yeah I am as shoulder shruggingly agnostic about that form of omphalism as I am about being a brain in a jar. Of course I don’t really give any credence at all to such pointless possibilities (for the sake of sanity if nothing else) but they are by their very design unknowable. But what do we mean by agnostic here? Unfalsifiable? Unknowable?If something is entirely unknowable by any evidential means then from where has the concept arisen? If it is entirely unknowable in any evidential terms then where else can it have originated as concept but in ones imagination? And if the very concept under consideration necessarily originates from ones imagination then why give it any more credence than any of the other multitude of entirely un-falsifiable scenarios we are capable of pulling out of our arses?

Well I think this leads to inconsistencies. If you are wiling to play along I’d like to pretend that I am a biblical omphalist. Is that OK?If so I would ask you to remind us exactly on what basis you reject biblical omphalism whilst remaining agnostic to other forms of omphalism?Because it seems to me that, your world view aside, my claim that the universe was created 10,000 years ago fully formed is just as valid as your empirical conclusion that it is billions of years old. Tell me why it isn't?

Oh purlease! Don't blame me for the fact that you are unable to come up with a consistent argument upon which to claim your agnosticism towards some forms of omphalism but not others. You initially blathered on about "mataphysical truth" but have now revealed that you have no idea what it is you are talking about. Omphalists are making a claim as to how long the universe has physically existed. And claiming some non-empirical means of knowing this. I think they are talking out of their arses. You are apparently agnostic to some such claims and reject others. But you have not given any rational reason for this inconsistent approach beyond your subjective opinion. Yes. That is exactly my argument.If something is entirely unknowable by any evidential means then from where has the concept arisen? If it is entirely unknowable then where else can it have originated but in ones imagination? And if the very concept under consideration necessarily originates from ones imagination then why give it any more credence than any of the other multitude of entirely un-falsifiable scenarios we are capable of pulling out of our arses?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.