|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Omnivorous, I hope you are well.
So to use the term "knowledge" is to abuse it. To misuse the term is to abuse it.
What certain "knowledge" do we have, and how did we acquire it? As I said in Message 1666 "... we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old." We acquire it by being careful about the limits of what we do know with certainty, and by being careful with the terminology to qualify what we know, so that false impressions are not created. Clarity of language is very important in this regard. For example, taking the age of the earth from the wiki article: Age of Earth - Wikipedia
quote: What we know about the age of the earth is qualified by how we know it and the limits of that knowledge. If we subtract the 1% we get a minimum age of the earth of 4.39 10^9 years(1), based on the evidence, testing methodology and information currently available, and we can honestly say:
We know that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4.39 billion years old. I can have 100% certainty in that statement as qualified, I cannot have 100% certainty in an unqualified statement that we know the earth is 4.54 billion years old. If the actual age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old, this last (orange) statement is false, but my (pink) statement above is still true. Enjoy (1) - This is similar to the minimum ages I generated in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No crashfrog
"100% confidence" in a qualified statement is, by definition, a contradiction in terms. "100% certainty", by definition, means unqualified certainty in a proposition. Is the statement true?
It's like saying "I'm absolutely almost sure." The qualifications define the conditions and limits of the knowledge Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi PaulK
And you DON'T know that with 100% certainty. You haven't dealt with, for instance, Descartes demon or the similar "brain-in-the-box" scenarios. In other words, you dismiss unfalsifiable, yet (apparently) possible scenarios to claim to have knowledge. And unless you do so, you cannot even "know" that the tests have even been performed, let alone their outcomes. So, is it acceptable to dismiss unfalsifiable and implausible scenarios that - for all we know - could be true ? Or do we need to give them serious consideration ? This is one of the central considerations of this discussion, and it appears that you are taking both sides. But I haven't dismissed them. The evidence could be an illusion and the statement is still true, that "we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old." Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Modulus,
But not with 100% certainty. Again, is my statement true or false?
Its not redefining it, it is defining it. And it isn't 'almost knowledge' it is actual knowledge, tentatively concluded given the imperfection of our measuring equipment and our minds. So you almost know ...
If you want to suggest it is impossible to know anything since we can never be 100% certain, that's fine. But don't balk when others argue that all knowledge is tentative, but is still knowledge. Curiously, I'm not the one that needs to redefine the word so that I can pretend that I know more than I know. You know, like redefining science to include astrology ... Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi PaulK, I just need to come back to a couple of points.
Of course the confusion is yours, and therefore your problem. Curiously there are people who are not confused by my posts. Certainly you are not confused by my posts like Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 are you?
RAZD, we are discussing a case where we have quite thoroughly tested for "evidence of the other", to the point where we have eliminated the possibility. To be precise, by watching brain function we have no inputs that are unaccounted for and all point to a natural origin of the experience, thus we can say that the experience is the product of natural causes, and it does not detect supernatural beings - for the simple reason that given the same natural causes the same experience would occur whether there were a supernatural being present or not. And what you don't seem to realize is that your testing will never result in "evidence of the other" because you assume you have covered all the bases so that you don't need to look for anything else. You look at the brain scans, and you conclude there is either normal or abnormal behavior. Under normal behavior you watch scans of people dreaming or have a religious experience and if you have no other explanation you conclude that these are normal behavior of imagination, even though people involved say otherwise -- you know better eh? Under abnormal behavior you watch the scans of people and if you have no other explanation you conclude that these are abnormal behavior of brain malfunction, hallucination or insanity.
... thus we can say that the experience is the product of natural causes, and it does not detect supernatural beings ... Because it cannot detect supernatural beings. It never has and it never will, even if one is standing there.
And I am pointing out that this is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, which is how we might determine if religious experiences are detections of supernatural beings or not. Once we have hypothetically determined that the experience is entirely due to natural causes the question of whether a supernatural being happens to be present or not becomes an irrelevance for the reasons I have given. But you haven't "determined that the experience is entirely due to natural causes" -- you have just put them in tidy categories that pretend to explain them as due to natural causes, categories that are "catch-alls" for anything you cannot otherwise categorize as natural causes: imagination, brain malfunction, hallucination, insanity. Anything that could be an actual experience gets put into one or the other of those tidy little categories and you tell yourself that you have an explanation for it, and that it is due to natural causes.
quote: Alternatively we can examine the detector, find that it's behaviour is governed entirely by factors unrelated to the thing it supposedly detects and therefore conclude that it does not work. You have presented no valid argument against such a test. It is not my job to do your work for you. You claim to have a methodology that you believe detects a lack of supernatural presence. You have not substantiated that claim by showing that it can produce a positive result. I point out to you, again, that you (a) do not have a tested and validated methodology that is known to produce positive results, and (b) that without such a test method/ology you are like a Ben Franklin flying his kite in a storm without a means to test for the presence of electricity. You agreed that in this scenario Ben Franklin cannot assume that electricity is not present in lightening, even though he failed to detect it, because the reason he failed to detect it, is that he did not test for it. Your "natural causes" do not test for the presence of supernatural beings, it purports to test for what you cannot explain, and you explain everything with tidy catch-all categories whether they may or may not include supernatural essence. It's flawed thinking. It's begging the question.
The confusion here is yours. The test does not seek to detect supernatural elements. Instead it determines if the known natural elements are sufficient to explain the experience (measured at the level of brain function). You may argue that finding a gap in our understanding is not sufficient to conclude that a supernatural explanation is needed and you would be correct, but that is not the point of the test. I am not confused at all by what you claim, I can see clearly that it does not have the ability to test for supernatural presence, because you can explain any brain behavior in various tidy catch-all categories, such as imagination, brain malfunction, hallucination, and insanity. Do you have a detector and methodology that you have tested and confirmed that it will produce a positive result if there were a supernatural presence? Ben Franklin had TWO such tests when he determined electricity was present in lightening. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Omnivorous
Do we? How many unevidenced certainties must we put in the phenomenologists' brackets to say so? [Matrix/Descartes' Evil Daemon][the integrity of each scientist and instrument maker involved] [the X factor which makes nonsense of all our measures] [a current sane state] [etcetera] Assume that any one of those is true: does that change the truth of the statement that "... we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."
The appropriate brackets for the word 'knowledge' come prepackaged with the context of its use. I see no reason for a long string of qualifiers, even for scientists: in that context, the qualifiers are understood; outside that context, they aren't necessary and, far from misleading anyone, may even undermine the popular understanding and acceptance of scientific findings. Curiously, I have no problem with stating things like this, especially in threads like the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread
... Adding up all the time recorded by these tree rings would give us a minimum age of the earth for all those years to have passed that generated the rings. We'll be minimalist here and say: Minimum age of the earth > 8,000 years based on this data. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
In over 1700 posts not one piece of actual objective evidence has been presented to show that a single supernatural entity is actually objectively demonstrated to be the product of human imagination.
Not one piece of evidence or line of investigation has been suggested to bluegenes to further his claim to have a real theory or his claim to have "plenty of evidence" to support his claim, as opposed to a hypothetical conjecture, which is present in massive doses (see discussion between Straggler and xongsmith for examples). What has been presented is assumption and conjecture after assumption and conjecture, with the unsubstantiated claim that they are reasonable assumptions and conjectures. That is not objective evidence as used in science. That is not how science operates. There is no method to actually detect actual supernatural presence/s. There is no methodology to actually test for supernatural presence. The assumption that measuring natural causes will somehow turn up evidence for supernatural essences, and the failure to turn up supernatural essences means that natural causes are a complete explanation uses begging the question and affirming the consequent logical fallacies. When
The analogy,
The assumption that the results of any tests did not show the presence of electricity and that ... • therefore there is no reason to hypothesize or investigate further to see if electricity was involved ... is thus a false conclusion, based on circular reasoning, affirming the consequent, personal bias and worldview, rather than on objective empirical tested evidence. The proper conclusion would be that the presence or absence of electricity was not tested rather than absent. In actuality, Ben had not one, but two independent tests, both previously tested and validated methods, known to detect electricity and known to produce positive results when electricity was present and not produce positive results when electricity was not present. This kind of scientifically tested and validated method and procedure is completely missing in the detection of supernatural presence or absence. Therefore the proper conclusion is that supernatural presences\essence\etc are untested rather than absent. The evidence (zero), test methods (missing) and information (assumptions, conjectures, etc) we currently have only show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings ... if it is assumed that it is (a) human imagination and (b) that imagination is the only source, rather than being actually demonstrated. The evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the presence or absence of supernatural beings/essence/etc is untested. In a nutshell, this is also why bluegenes' arguments on the GD thread are also a complete failure. Enjoy. If anyone is confused by this post they can PM me. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024