Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Omphalism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 75 of 151 (547147)
02-16-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by nwr
02-11-2010 6:43 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
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.
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.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "physical."
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.
They are making a claim that is quite deliberately exempt from any possibility of being examined by physics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by nwr, posted 02-11-2010 6:43 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 02-16-2010 10:35 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 79 of 151 (547256)
02-17-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Blue Jay
02-16-2010 7:02 PM


Rabid Goggle Eyed Empiricist
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?
What are you asking for?
Asking for? I am pointing out that if an omphalist denies the validity of empirical evidence and conclusions regarding the age of the universe then they must have some alternative basis upon which they have drawn their rival conclusion regarding this matter.
Evidence?
If they call it evidence. A "reason for belief" if they want to be more coy about it.
Wouldn't that be the empirical way of doing things?
Only if the "evidence" (or reason for belief) in question is empirical. If it isn't empirical then (by definition) it isn't "the empirical way of doing things". I don't care what basis for their belief they cite. I simply ask why they have any confidence in that method of knowing. Why is that such an outrageously unreasonable question?
Omphalism is not based on evidence. It's not supposed to be, and, as far as I am aware, nobody who practices it thinks it is.
The only actual omphalists I am aware of are biblical omphalists. And they very definitely do claim that biblical literalism (specifically regarding chronology) is a superior form of knowing to empirical investigation in relation to determining the age of the Earth. See the links in Message 28 if you don't believe me. The very term "Omphalos" is derived from this exact epistemology.
I posited Last Thursdayists who have drawn their Last Thursdayist conclusion on the basis of subjective evidence as a hypothetical alternative to this. Precisely because I am unaware of any other actual omphalists in existence. What other omphalists are you talking about? And are you seriously suggesting that they have made their omphalistic conclusion on the basis of no reason whatsoever? Isn't a conclusion made without any reason at all simply called "randomly guessing"?
You want a different epistemology to work the way yours does, with methodologies and clear-cut, distinct bases on which to found arguments that can be evaluated by observation and experimentation.
You can make me out to be the rabid goggle eyed empiricist if it makes you feel better. All I am actually requesting is that any proposed form of knowing be able to demonstrate that it is able to draw conclusions that are more reliable than guessing. And suggesting that if it cannot do this then it is simply faith and should rationally be treated as no differently to any other entirely faith based unevidenced position.
You want conclusions, you want processes and you want formulas.
No. I want people to explain why they are agnostic towards some things that are by definition evidentially unknowable and unfalsifiable whilst rejecting other things that are evidentially identical. If faith is the answer then fine. But don't tell me I should lower my skepticism and be agnostic towards some things just because others have faith in them.
And, you are apparently under the impression that this is what non-empiricists do.
What are you talking about? Where are you getting this from? And why the sudden hostility?
But, omphalism and theism and spiritualism and animism and whatever else do not work the way empiricism does!
Well on that we agree.
That's what makes them different epistemologies!
This thread is effectively about methods of knowing. Are all epistemologies equal? Or are some methods of knowing superior and deserving of more confidence than others? It is not at all clear whether or not you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be superior in terms of reliability and validity to the biblical omphalist conclusion. Can you clarify your position on this?
You seem to be suggesting that all epistemologies are to be considered equally valid and reliable? But does not a demonstrable ability to make reliable and testable predictions elevate some forms of knowing ahead of others in terms of the confidence we can have in them and the conclusions derived from them?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Blue Jay, posted 02-16-2010 7:02 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 02-17-2010 10:06 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 80 of 151 (547257)
02-17-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by nwr
02-16-2010 10:35 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
You did not explain what you mean by "physical" and why you treat the omphalist's claim as a physical one.
Do you accept that time is a physical property? Then short of being a pedantic arse you will understand that there is a conflict of both conclusion and method of knowing when a Last Thursdayist claims that the universe has existed for less than a week whilst the empiricist claims that it has been in existence for billions of years.
Well, so do I. But that does not change the fact that they have introduced a radical skepticism about empirical evidence.
I am sorry Nwr but I see no point conversing with you further on this matter. I may be wrong. It may be that the succinct intelligence of your points is being lost on me. Others reading this can decide that for themselves. But I personally see no further point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 02-16-2010 10:35 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 02-17-2010 5:40 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 82 of 151 (547260)
02-17-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by New Cat's Eye
02-17-2010 11:52 AM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
So, where's your evidence? How did you come to conclusion that the universe is 10,000 years old?
I came to on the basis of biblical chronology. I am not saying that I know this to be true. I am simply saying that this method of knowing is no less valid than your empirical methodology.
Last Thursdayism is not a claim from any kind of evidence, it is a philosophical possibility, I have PAP agnosticism.
If somebody proposes Last Thursdayism on the basis of no reason whatesoever how is this any different to guessing that omphalism is true and randomly picking a date that it occurred?
Yet you claim agnosticism to this form of philosophical guessing whilst rejecting my form of omphalism which has an epistemology behind it that is no less valid than your empiricism. How can you justify this?
(How am I doing on the pretending? )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2010 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2010 6:00 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 83 of 151 (547262)
02-17-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by nwr
02-17-2010 5:40 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
"Time" is a name we use for a physical property.
Yes the physical property of time. What alternative form of "time" are you proposing that omphalists are using?
It does not follow that every use of the word "time" is making a physical claim.
So what exactly is a Last Thursdayist claiming with regard to time then? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 02-17-2010 5:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nwr, posted 02-17-2010 9:58 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 85 of 151 (547265)
02-17-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by New Cat's Eye
02-17-2010 6:00 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Empirical methodology put a man on the moon.
Has it? Not if Last Thursdayism is true. I thought you were agnostic towards Last Thursdayism? So you don't actually know what empiricism has achieved or not achieved do you?
Isn't it obvious that empirical methodology is more valid?
If you believe in empiricism it is very obvious. But it is equally obvious to me that God exists, that Jesus is my saviour and that the bible is the most reliable method of knowing anything. More reliable than mere temporal empirical theories.
If somebody proposes Last Thursdayism on the basis of no reason whatesoever how is this any different to guessing that omphalism is true and randomly picking a date that it occurred?
Huh? How could a proposition being on the basis of no reason whatsoever ever be any different than a random guess?
It can't. But bidn't you say you were agnostic towards the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism made on the basis of no reason or evidence whatsoever?
Are you agnostic about all random guesses? Or do you usually consider such a method to be rather unlikley to result in reliable results?
Because empiricism IS more valid. But it says nothing to the philisophical possibility of Last Thursdayism.
Well if Last Thursdayism is true empirical conclusions pertaining to any date prior to last Thursday are not valid. Are they? You are simply assuming that they are. Which is an invalid assumption if you are truly agnostic about Last thusdayism
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2010 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2010 9:54 AM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 89 of 151 (547463)
02-19-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by nwr
02-17-2010 9:58 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
So the entire premise of your argument is that last Thursdayism has nothing whatsoever to do with last Thursday. Call me an pedantic old stick in the mud if you will but I would suggest that the clue is the name.
But whatever.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by nwr, posted 02-17-2010 9:58 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nwr, posted 02-19-2010 4:49 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 90 of 151 (547464)
02-19-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Blue Jay
02-17-2010 10:06 PM


Faith
It is not at all clear whether or not you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be superior in terms of reliability and validity to the biblical omphalist conclusion. Can you clarify your position on this?
All I am actually requesting is that any proposed form of knowing be able to demonstrate that it is able to draw conclusions that are more reliable than guessing.
And, how does one demonstrate reliability?
Well let me ask you - How do you think it is even possible for one to practically demonstrate the reliability of a method of knowing?
And if one suggests a form of knowing that is unable to be demonstrated as reliable in any practical sense then how can one consider confidence in the conclusions of that form of knowing as anything but faith?
And if faith is all you are advocating with regard to omphalism then on what basis is agnosticism rather than scepticism the rational conclusion to omphalism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 02-17-2010 10:06 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Blue Jay, posted 02-19-2010 6:25 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 91 of 151 (547467)
02-19-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Empirical methodology put a man on the moon.
Straggler the Biblical omphalist writes:
Has it? Not if Last Thursdayism is true.
Well then neither would your biblical chronology be true.
No. But I don't claim to be agnostic towards last Thursdayism. I know the bible is true.
I thought you were agnostic towards Last Thursdayism? So you don't actually know what empiricism has achieved or not achieved do you?
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.
Only if I am agnostic towrds last Thursdayism . But I am not. Don't tar me with your brush.
Are you agnostic about all random guesses? Or do you usually consider such a method to be rather unlikley to result in reliable results?
Yes, but Last Thursdayism isn't a random guess, its philisophical proposition.
What is the difference in terms of how valid or true the propoistion in question is?
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.
So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday.
You agree that the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism equates to guessing that a form of omphalistic creation took place. You also agree that this amounts to randomly picking last Thursday as the date of this creation. Yet you consider this guess as a sufficiently reliable to warrant your agnosticism rather than scepticism.
Meanwhile you continue to reject the biblically evidenced conclusion that the universe was brought into existence fully formed circa 4,000 years ago purely on the basis of philosophical bias against any form of biblical literalism of any sort.
In summary — Your empirical conclusions have no validity, your agnosticism towards last Thurdayism makes no sense and your opposition to biblical omphalism is derived from subjective world view and philosophical bias alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2010 9:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2010 3:04 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 93 of 151 (547477)
02-19-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2010 3:04 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
But if the universe was created Last Thurday fully formed with your memories, then you wouldn't be able to distinguish between that and what you say you are knowing as true. You would still think that you know its true but you'd be wrong. And there's no way to show otherwise.
Empirically? Yes. But the bible sheds a different light on matters. And the word of God indisputably exists whether you think the universe popped into existence last Thursday or otherwise. But the biblical evidence still suggests circa 4,000 years ago as the date of creation.
Meanwhile you continue to reject the biblically evidenced conclusion that the universe was brought into existence fully formed circa 4,000 years ago purely on the basis of philosophical bias against any form of biblical literalism of any sort.
No, I reject it on the empirical evidence to the contrary.
So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday?
Please explain?
Swing!... and a miss.
Ah the arrogance of the empiricsist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2010 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-23-2010 1:28 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 95 of 151 (547484)
02-19-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by nwr
02-19-2010 4:49 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
Straggler writes:
So what exactly is a Last Thursdayist claiming with regard to time then?
He is claiming that empirical methods for determining time give wrong answers. The reasonable conclusion is that his concept of time is very different from that of the physical time that we ordinarily use.
Straggler writes:
So the entire premise of your argument is that last Thursdayism has nothing whatsoever to do with last Thursday.
If your ego requires that you engage in these silly games of oneupmanship, then I will leave you to it.
If your ego requires that you invent definitions of phsyical quantites that are meaningless to anyone but yourself then the silly games are all of your own making.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nwr, posted 02-19-2010 4:49 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 98 of 151 (548262)
02-26-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by New Cat's Eye
02-23-2010 1:28 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Biblical Omphalist Straggler writes:
So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday?
Please explain?
How would I distinguish between the/an old universe and one that was created Last Thursday?
You cannot. So on what basis are you advocating confidence in one and agnosticism towards the other?
Although you say you are agnostic towards Last Thursdayism you don't seem to be very agnostic to me. Last Thursdayism is every bit as much of a parody of genuine biblical omphalism as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is a parody of belief in God. How can you justify advocating agnosticism towards Last Thursdayism whilst denying the validity of the IPU on the basis that it is obviously made-up?
Wiki writes:
The belief, much like the belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is a parody of one of the many creationist arguments that the universe is only 6000 years old despite having the appearance being of 15 billion years old, with the effect of age being brought about by the creation of starlight in transit, or by creating fossils of creatures which never existed to scatter through rock strata bearing witness to geological ages that never took place. (See the article The Earth created with age ("Omphalos") for further details.)
Last Thursdayism serves to parallel many creationist assertions to illustrate by analogy just how ridiculous these creationist assertions really are. For example, a common apology for the existence of ancient animal fossils is that they were placed by Satan to test the faith of the believer. The last Thursdayist may with equal logic say the same thing about last Wednesday's newspaper. Last Thursdayism
Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-23-2010 1:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 2:39 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 100 of 151 (548273)
02-26-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Blue Jay
02-19-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Faith
It is not at all clear whether or not you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be superior in terms of reliability and validity to the biblical omphalist conclusion. Can you clarify your position on this?
What is this obsession with my partisanship? I thought we were debating your opinions on this topic, not mine.
Where did we decide that? If you are advocating agnosticism towards omphalism then why so reticent to declare how confident you are in the rival empirical conclusion and the basis of that conclusion? It may well be that your reasons are identical to mine in which case we have no real argument. Isn't common ground the aim here?
Can we just talk about the concepts without picking teams?
If you want. But why do you want to remain on the fence? Do you not have a reasoned opinion on this matter? Isn't taking a position and arguing it the entire point of a debate board? Anyway let's have a quick recap of your position such as it is:
Bluejay writes:
As near as I can tell from the physical evidence around me, the earth is billions of years old.
Straggler writes:
Yes and I have asked you how much confidence you have in that form of evidence and that conclusion?
Bluejay writes:
Why do you assume that this is a simple or even a meaningful question?
What confidence can I have in an epistemology?
Straggler writes:
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.
I remain unclear as to why you don't want to answer that question. I remain unclear as to how you can state belief in the empirical conclusion whilst simultaneously denying that one epistemology can be considered superior to another. This all seems very evasive and contradictory. But have it your way.
Bluejay writes:
And, how does one demonstrate reliability?
Straggler writes:
Well let me ask you - How do you think it is even possible for one to practically demonstrate the reliability of a method of knowing?
That’s what I just asked you.
Not exactly. But I will answer my own question if it makes you happy. It is only possible to demonstrate the reliability of a method of knowing if it can in practise tell us something about the reality that exists external to our own minds that is shared with others and can thus be verified independently. It doesn't have to be empirical in principle. Nor does every single conclusion need to be independently verified. But the method of knowing does have to meet that criteria in order for conclusions made on that basis to to even possibly be distinguished from faith based belief (or just assumption).
Answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours.
Dude one thing I absolutely do not do (usually at the expense of brevity and succinctness) is evade questions. Anything you think I am not answering feel free to pursue me on and I absolutely guarantee that I will answer it. Will you do the same?
I then pointed out that their initial statement wasn’t that communism doesn’t treat people right, but that it doesn’t work.
I didn't say that other epistemologies cannot work. I said that if you are unable to demonstrate that it works then you are simply assuming that it does on faith. Maybe reading cloud formations really can lead to reliable conclusions regarding the mood of an entirely undetectable and non-intervening god. But why on Earth would we take that possibility seriously?
Logically, as long as you define success as fulfilling the basic tenets of the system I believe in, then, obviously, any system that is different from yours will not succeed.
Well then provide the criteria upon which omphalistic claims are being made and the basis for why these criteria are logically valid. Provide a means of determining "success" that is logically valid and then you might have an argument. As things stand you don't.
And, you’re doing exactly the same thing! Physical demonstrability is a requirement for knowledge in the empirical sense only! By asking for demonstrations of the effectiveness of other epistemologies, you are requiring all epistemologies be empirical!
No. I am asking that they are demonstrably reliable. If you can think of a way of demonstrating the reliability of a form of knowing without it's claims being detectable by anybody else then I am all ears.
Basically, it sounds like the statement, Non-empirical epistemologies do not produce empirical knowledge.
No. I am arguing a practical point. Not one of a priori philosophical bias. If the method of knowing from which omphalism (or whatever) is derived is unable to demonstrate itself as reliable to anyone else then on what basis are the conclusions derived by means of that form of knowing knowledge rather than belief?
Well, hot damn, Straggler! You may be on to something there!
And you would be onto something if you could tell us how logically a form of knowing (ideally one relevant to claims of omphalism for the sake of the topic) can be established as reliable unless it tells us something about the reality that is shared, common and detectable by others?
Seriously, people find you aggravating because you always want to polarize the debate.
Oh dear. Yet again it seems that I am being caricatured as some sort of wild eyed empiricist who denies the existence of anything that cannot be measured or mathematically modelled. This is of course utter nonsense. I have never said any such thing. But it is easier for those preaching the gospel of agnosticism to convince themselves that anyone who does not adhere to the tenet of the unknowable must be doing so on the basis of some imbecilic black and white tautology. In fact all I am doing (all I have ever done) to inspire this reaction is ask the following:
1) On what basis is the conclusion made?
2) Is the form of knowing on which the conclusion was made demonstrably reliable (i.e. demonstrably superior to guessing)?
3) If the form of knowing applied to draw the conclusion in question (omphalism in this case) is not demonstrably reliable then how does confidence in this conclusion differ from faith?
4) If the belief in question is effectively faith based why would I be any less sceptical of this particular conclusion than any of the other entirely unevidenced and unfalsifiable logical possibilities that can be to plucked from the collective arse of human imagination?
Enjoy.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Blue Jay, posted 02-19-2010 6:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Blue Jay, posted 02-26-2010 10:08 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 101 of 151 (548274)
02-26-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
You seem to be simply saying that omphalism is a logical possibility that cannot ever be refuted. Even in principle. If that is simply your criteria for PAP agnosticism then we are back to all of the other such beings, entities and scenarios that can be made equally irreutable in principle.
Imagine that there is an IPU that is NOT omnipotent and having created our universe is now just unable to ever interract with it ever again because she exists in an entirely different plane of reality. Are you agnostic towards this entirely unknowable IPU concept?
Last Thursdayism is every bit as much of a parody of genuine biblical omphalism as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is a parody of belief in God. How can you justify advocating agnosticism towards Last Thursdayism whilst denying the validity of the IPU on the basis that it is obviously made-up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 2:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 3:43 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 103 of 151 (548278)
02-26-2010 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2010 3:43 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Last Thursdayism? IPU?
"I don't know, but I doubt it."
Good grief CS are you saying that you think these conclusions unlikely to be true?
Biblical Omphalism?
"Falsified."
Falsified? But biblical omphalism is as unfalsifiable as Last Thursdayism surely? The empirical evidence is identical in both scenarios.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 4:03 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024