Omphalism

And if the meaning is NOT different? Then what?

Has anybody actually concluded Last Thursdayism?I've always seen it portrayed as a philisophical possibility and never a conclusion.

Not really but sort of. I think you went a little too far in claiming that a Last Thursdayist has made a conclusion based on "subjective evidence". Leaving it as a philosophical possibility keeps it in the realm of unfalsifiability and that does have some bearing on the logical or evidential validity of the position. Take what Modulus brought up in the other thread:

quote:

---

Actually - Dawkins differentiates between 'the evidence could point in one of two directions' agnotsticism (Temporarily Agnostic in Practice (TAP) and Permanently Agnostic in Principle (PAP)). One generally would be PAP for unfalsifiable stuff but Dawkins uses this as a springboard to falsifying the premise of the design argument by arguing we shouldn't consider it PAP.

---

Forcing Last Thursdayism into being an evidenced conclusion would lead to TAP agnosticism while leaving it as a unfalsifiable philosophical possibility would keep it at PAP agnosticism.

If someone says: "It could have been...."Then my PAP agnosticims goes: yeah, sure, whatever If someone says: "It was...."Then my TAP agnosticim goes: Oh really, lets look and see We could examine his empirical evidence to see if it leads to his conclusion. Its a reaction to empirical evidence suggesting something that they don't want to accept. And the response is: "Well, it could have been...."And yeah, it could have but its doubtful.If their response was: "No, it actually happened like...."Then we can examine their evidence and figure out if/where they're wrong. 1) I don't think they see it as being deceptive and unreliable, but rather that it is being misread because of faulty assumptions.For example, the omphalist might believe that light was created already traveling from closer than scientists think, so when they extrapolate the current speed back they come up with the wrong answer for its source. But its the same empirical evidence and its not deceptive or unreliable... Ya know what I mean?

That they're just responding with something that allows them to maintain their a priori belief rather than something that's based on evidence. Then nothing. Something hasn't been demonstrated.Although, if they had some actual reason to believe and I thought their belief was genuine, then I would be a little less doubtful than the responding one above and I'd actually look into it instead of just hand-waving it away. Sure, what's your point?

If somebody brought up Omphalism as a philisophical possibility then I would find that to be more dubious than somebody who said they observed some kind of evidence that led them to conclude Omphalism.But since the philisophical possibility is not falsifiable then I'd be stuck at PAP agnosticism, however, the concluded Omphalism could be investigated so I'd have TAP agnosticism. You've misunderstood, partially my fault due to conflation. We need to distinguish between Last Thurdayism and Biblical Omphalism.Last Thursdayism is not a claim from any kind of evidence, it is a philosophical possibility, I have PAP agnosticism. Biblical Omphalism as stemming from the Bible, is a claim that I have TAP agnosticism to until we actually look at the evidence and form a better conclusion. Biblical Omphalism, as a response to empirical evidence in a 'it could have been' position, doesn't actually make a claim, but is left as a philisophical possibility and too I would have PAP agnosticism, but I would be doubtful because they are just basing it on a priori conclusions.Make sense?

Don't assume that the evidence that hypothetically lead to omphalism is indistinguishable from guessing and my point might make more sense. Because one being an unfalsifiable philisophical possibility leads to PAP agnosticism but the other being an actual claim based on evidence leads to TAP agnosticism that can be overturned.

Thus my questioning of anyone actually concluding Last Thursdayinsm as opposed to it just being brought up as a philisophical possibility.

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.

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

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.

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?

I'm sure it could. But that's neither here nor there on my position on omphalism. For that, there's really not much I can add that I haven't already said in this thread. I guess. I don't think I'm going to be able to fake my sincerety very well though. In Message 35, I brought up the distinction between TAP and PAP agnosticism:

quote:

---

Take what Modulus brought up in the other thread:

​

quote:

---

Actually - Dawkins differentiates between 'the evidence could point in one of two directions' agnotsticism (Temporarily Agnostic in Practice (TAP) and Permanently Agnostic in Principle (PAP)). One generally would be PAP for unfalsifiable stuff but Dawkins uses this as a springboard to falsifying the premise of the design argument by arguing we shouldn't consider it PAP.

---

​

Forcing Last Thursdayism into being an evidenced conclusion would lead to TAP agnosticism while leaving it as a unfalsifiable philosophical possibility would keep it at PAP agnosticism.

---

In Message 50 I said what would answer your question above:

quote:

---

If somebody brought up Omphalism as a philisophical possibility then I would find that to be more dubious than somebody who said they observed some kind of evidence that led them to conclude Omphalism.

​

But since the philisophical possibility is not falsifiable then I'd be stuck at PAP agnosticism, however, the concluded Omphalism could be investigated so I'd have TAP agnosticism.

---

quote:

---

Last Thursdayism is not a claim from any kind of evidence, it is a philosophical possibility, I have PAP agnosticism. Biblical Omphalism as stemming from the Bible, is a claim that I have TAP agnosticism to until we actually look at the evidence and form a better conclusion. Biblical Omphalism, as a response to empirical evidence in a 'it could have been' position, doesn't actually make a claim, but is left as a philisophical possibility and too I would have PAP agnosticism, but I would be doubtful because they are just basing it on a priori conclusions.

---

In Message 39 I wrote:

quote:

---

If someone says: "It could have been...."
Then my PAP agnosticims goes: yeah, sure, whatever

​

If someone says: "It was...."

​

Then my TAP agnosticim goes: Oh really, lets look and see

---

and

quote:

---

If their response was: "No, it actually happened like...."

​

Then we can examine their evidence and figure out if/where they're wrong.

---

So, where's your evidence? How did you come to conclusion that the universe is 10,000 years old?You said you're a biblical omphalist, if you're going to respond to scientific evidence with an 'it could have been' position, then you can find my reponse above.

Empirical methodology put a man on the moon. What has biblical chronology done?Isn't it obvious that empirical methodology is more valid? Huh? How could a proposition being on the basis of no reason whatsoever ever be any different than a random guess? Because empiricism IS more valid. But it says nothing to the philisophical possibility of Last Thursdayism.

Well then neither would your biblical chronology be true. As an unfalsifiable philisophical possibility, we are unable to know if it is true or not, but this casts the same agnosticism on your biblical chronology as well.All that aside, and considering what we do know, we're left with empirical methodology acheiving more than biblical chronology. How have you tested the reliability of the bible as a method? And what has a biblical methodology acheived? As an unfalsifyable philisophical possibility, in an 'it could have been' sense, yes. But as an actual claim I would doubt. Yes, but Last Thursdayism isn't a random guess, its philisophical proposition. But this is about biblical chronology making an actual claim on the age of the universe, not just a musing on the tentativity of an unfalsifyable possibility.