Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 1607 of 1725 (632468)
09-08-2011 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1598 by xongsmith
09-08-2011 4:16 AM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence
Straggler writes:
Well if you consider the predicted motion of a falling pen as nothing more than an opinion then it is little wonder you can't understand how anything else can be considered a form of tentative knowledge.
For the past few years RAZ has been asserting that ANY conclusion regarding anything unfalsifiable is necessarily and logically nothing more than a subjective opinion. If he now wants to equivocate by throwing in words like hypothetical, conjecture, guess and belief into the mix as well then I suppose he can. But it doesn't make his arguments any less flawed.
And yes all of his words indicate tentativity. But they do so by denying any capacity for scientific knowledge at all. Instead everything from the existence of god based on religious experience to the predicted motion of a falling pen based on a wealth of scientific understanding is lumped together as "opinion".
RAZD writes:
You can't have degrees of knowledge: there is know and don't know.
What a pile of black and white simplistic drivel. The entirety of science as a route to knowledge is based on tentatively concluding that the most objectively evidenced conclusion is more likely to be correct than the various evidentially baseless but untestable alternatives.
X writes:
Agree with this, my man, Straggler!
Then there is hope for you yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1598 by xongsmith, posted 09-08-2011 4:16 AM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 1615 of 1725 (632640)
09-09-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1609 by xongsmith
09-08-2011 2:16 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism By Fiat
X writes:
What was wrong with my answer?
It isn't an answer. You might just as well say "something". You continue to define "supernatural" in such a way that nothing actually supernatural can ever actually exist whilst simultaneously proclaiming your RAZ compatible agnosticism. It's nonsense.
X writes:
How about I turn it back on you: Are you able to give an example of something supernatural that can conceivably actually exist?
I have. Numerous times. Here hey are again. Ghosts, goblins, Thor, Vishnu, Christ, Voldermort, fairies, leprechauns, mermaids, vampires, werewolves, pixies, Allah, Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
X writes:
IF the Norse God Thor exists - YES - atheistic conclusions would be wrong, but this is on the same level as saying IF 1 equals 0, then mathematical conclusions are wrong.
Does the same apply to all of my examples above? Or are there any amongst those whose existence you don't deem to be mathematically impossible? How can you claim such certainty? Are you a preudoskeptic?
X writes:
Actually, because I am not a respected member of the scientific community specializing in this field, I don't get to decide.
Specialising in what field? If you want to know whether thunder and lightning have a natural explanation ask a scientist. If you want to know whether Thor is a supernatural being ask an expert in Norse mythology.
X writes:
If we know it's fictional already, we can save time & money.
You can't know that anything is fictional to the stupid degree of certainty that RAZ is demanding. So how are you claiming to know that any of these things don't actually exist?
X writes:
He has yet to describe how his experiments and procedures can detect ("beyond all reasonable shadow of a doubt") a real supernatural being.
"Beyond all reasonable shadow of a doubt"......?
You cannot prove that something is supernatural any more than you can prove that something is natural.
As to how you detect any of these entities - Well empirically obviously. How else are you going to detect them in such a way that they can be known to science? And if they can't be detected by our senses you need to explain how they are being detected at all without falling foul of the mind-body problem.
X writes:
How is bluegenes deciding which entities are fictional and which aren't?
Bluegenes theory is that all such concepts are fictional. Partly it is based on the mutual exclusivity of different specific concepts. Partly it is based on demonstrable aspects of human psychology. The theory is falsified by presenting any concrete evidence for any supernatural entity. For example:
A giant red haired viking able to summon storms and blast bolts of lightning at will turns up. He wields an indestructible hammer and is himself apparently impervious to harm. Scientists study this being in a lab. They puzzle over his superhuman strength, lack of DNA and weather controlling abilities. Similarly the hammer is made on no known substance and proves to be utterly immune from all known modes of material investigation attempted to determine it's composition. The hammer and it's mighty owner are inexplicable as far as modern science is concerned. The scientists release a statement to the enthralled onlooking world: "Whilst we will continue to investigate this phenomenon and test various speculative hypotheses to the best of our ability we currently have no explanation for the origin or abilities of this entity. In light of this failure we suggest that other avenues of research are conducted in parallel to our own ongoing investigations".
The world's leading experts in Norse mythology are assembled. They start to interview our mighty red headed entity. Not only does he know as much about the myths and history in which our experts excel as they do, he is actually able to fill in the gaps in their knowledge in consistent and credible ways. His linguistic abilities and knowledge combined with his amazing superhuman abilities are all consistent with one conclusion. The Norse mythology experts hold a press conference: "As amazing as it seems we have come to the conclusion that the being whom we have been interviewing recently is entirely consistent with a being that exactly matches the Norse God Thor as believed to exist by the ancient vikings. What this incredible conclusion means to mankind can only be speculated upon. But the facts are consistent with this conclusion".
At that point bluegenes theory would have been well and truly falsified wouldn't it?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1609 by xongsmith, posted 09-08-2011 2:16 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1621 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 2:49 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 1616 of 1725 (632641)
09-09-2011 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1614 by Chuck77
09-09-2011 5:23 AM


Re: Sometimes faith is all there is
Chuck writes:
For now, this is all I got.
Yes faith is all you have.
RAZ writes:
I cannot make any better arguments than RAZD has and yet you still fight him tooth and nail.
You are quite right that in his own way way RAZ too is doing nothing more than special pleading human belief as a form of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1614 by Chuck77, posted 09-09-2011 5:23 AM Chuck77 has not replied

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


Message 1618 of 1725 (632667)
09-09-2011 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1617 by 1.61803
09-09-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Atheism By Numbness
I assume you are talking about this thread Message 60 (up and down from linked message)
Science has much to say about why people believe in the unfalsifiable things that they do.
But it has little to do with defining Thor as a supernatural being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1617 by 1.61803, posted 09-09-2011 10:13 AM 1.61803 has not replied

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


Message 1620 of 1725 (632690)
09-09-2011 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1619 by xongsmith
09-09-2011 11:54 AM


Re: 1.618
If anyone wants to give an example of a "matter of faith" upon which science must be silent I suggest that they take it to the thread I linked to in my reply to golden.
But you would do well to have a read of that thread first........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1619 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 11:54 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1622 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 3:00 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 1623 of 1725 (632711)
09-09-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1621 by xongsmith
09-09-2011 2:49 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism By Fiat
I've told you how to falsify bluegenes theory. You can extend this to any supernatural concept which is empirically detectable.
If you want to claim both that it is impossible to falsify bluegenes theory whilst also claiming agnosticism to the actual existence of supernatural entities then you are going to have to reconcile those claims by giving an example of something that is genuinely supernatural, which might conceivably exist but which still doesn't make bluegenes theory false.
Let me know when you have done that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1621 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 2:49 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1625 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 3:14 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 1627 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 3:59 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 1624 of 1725 (632712)
09-09-2011 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1622 by xongsmith
09-09-2011 3:00 PM


Re: 1.618
X writes:
Are you so deficient in your sense of humour that you failed to see the references to 1.618's name and the post number?
Yes I missed it.
Dude that is actually quite clever.....
I will reverse my rating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1622 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 3:00 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1626 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 3:16 PM Straggler has not replied

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


(3)
Message 1651 of 1725 (632825)
09-10-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1632 by RAZD
09-09-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence
Is it possible to have knowledge in the absence of certainty?
Is it possible to acquire tentative knowledge as a result of scientific investigation?
Can you give an example of something which can accurately be described as "known" as a result of scientific evidence?
Bertrand Russel writes:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".
Amen to that eh?
Dawkins Scale writes:
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
NOTE: "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
ALL evidence based knowledge is tentative RAZ. As long as you deny this you will continue to foolishly describe belief in the existence of gods as equivalent to things like knowledge of what a pen will do if dropped.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1632 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 6:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1661 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 3:40 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 1664 by xongsmith, posted 09-11-2011 5:00 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 1652 of 1725 (632826)
09-10-2011 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1627 by xongsmith
09-09-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism By Fiat
Faced with a genuinely supernatural being such as Thor the scientific community wouldn't be expected to do anything other than search for natural explanations for his abilities and honestly admit that they can't find any when this proves impossible. Because if he is genuinely supernatural his abilities will defy material explanation.
But the fact that an entity exactly matching the human concept of Thor, genuinely possessing the powers attributed to Thor and unable to be materially explained would falsify bluegenes theory whatever else the scientific community did or did not say.
Because it would show beyond all doubt that the concept of the god Thor was based on something real rather than being sourced from human imagination or embellishment in the way that bluegenes theory predicts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1627 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 3:59 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 1675 of 1725 (633040)
09-12-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1661 by RAZD
09-11-2011 3:40 PM


"Very Improbable"
Given your stance on "knowledge" the phrase 'scientific knowledge' becomes an oxymoron. And you still seem utterly bewildered as to why statements such as "very improbable" are necessary in the absence of certainty. So consider this:
I consider it "very improbable" that my soon-to-be dropped pen will do anything other than fall to the ground in the manner predicted by science. What do you say RAZ?
RAZD writes:
How do you determine "very improbable" without some basis where you have actually tested the possibilities rather than just assume your opinion/s are correct?
On the basis that objectively evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than evidentially baseless propositions. Do you dispute this?
RAZD writes:
ALL evidence based conclusions are tentative Straggles. As long as you deny this you will continue to foolishly describe belief that god/s don't exist as equivalent to things like the certainty of what a pen will do if dropped.
Yes all evidence based conclusions are tentative. Which is exactly why all scientific knowledge is tentative. But we can only have any scientific knowledge at all by rejecting (albeit tentatively) untestable propositions.
For example you can only draw any scientific conclusion at all regarding the predicted motion of a dropped pen by first rejecting the untested proposition that all of the evidence on which our scientific conclusions are based is the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created fully formed 1 second ago.
Hence I would say it is "very improbable" that my dropped pen will do anything other than fall to the ground as science predicts. What would you say RAZ?
RAZD writes:
Straggler writes:
Where do you place yourself on your own scale of belief above with regard to the untestable notion that all of the evidence on which our scientific conclusions are based is the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created 1 second ago?
I place myself as a 5, as you would understand if you actually read my positions. Obviously we cannot know for sure, we cannot test, but we can have opinions, and my personal opinion is that it is false.
Then ALL scientific conclusions are mere subjective opinions by the terms of your own argument. ALL scientific conclusions regarding the past depend on rejecting things like the 1 second universe proposition and all scientific conclusions regarding the future depend on the inductively derived conclusion that the laws of nature will continue into the future as they have demonstrated themselves to be up to now. Neither of these things have been tested in the way that you perennially insist upon.
RAZD writes:
The difference between a 5 and a 6 is that 5's don't delude themselves that they know something they do not know.
The difference between a 6 and a 5 is the difference between being able to draw scientific conclusions and being paralysed into uncertainty by an inability to reject the multiplicity of evidentially baseless alternatives.
RAZD writes:
Do you have a test methodology that you have tested and confirmed as much as the test methodologies for gravity, such that you have empirical confidence in being able to record a positive detection, as the test methodologies for gravity provide?
If before I let go of my soon-to-be dropped pen you accept the tested results of gravity then you are necessarily rejecting the untested notion that the universe was created 1 second ago with different physical laws (esp with regard to falling pens) than the ones you think are in place. You are also rejecting the untested notion that the laws of gravity are about to change.
On what basis do you reject these evidentially baseless alternatives before the pen is dropped?
Why do I ask?
Because I suspect that I reject your evidentially baseless notions regarding god(s) on the same basis.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1661 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 3:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1681 of 1725 (633061)
09-12-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1677 by RAZD
09-12-2011 8:00 AM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
RAZD writes:
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."
Is science a method of investigating the world and coming to accurate and reliable conclusions?
Or is it merely an exercise in internal logical consistency?
Because as you describe it science is just the latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1677 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2011 8:00 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1684 of 1725 (633127)
09-12-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1683 by xongsmith
09-12-2011 4:53 PM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
He has every fictional supernatural concept ever created. He has a myriad of mutually exclusive specific supernatural concepts. He has every supernatural entity defined as being the direct cause of every phenomenon for which we now have a scientifically verified natural cause (Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)
And he has the giant turtle holding up the earth.......
X writes:
He initially thought he had the Xongsmith Analemma on his side, but that is a major road block to falsification.
Only in your own head does the demonstrable existence of an entity which exactly matches an established supernatural concept fail to falsify bluegenes theory.
This is simply a failing of your own comprehension and an indication of your own "atheism by definition" approach.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1683 by xongsmith, posted 09-12-2011 4:53 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1693 by xongsmith, posted 09-14-2011 1:11 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 1686 of 1725 (633214)
09-13-2011 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1664 by xongsmith
09-11-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence
X on probability writes:
I really don't think RAZD, here, would disagree....
Except that RAZ persistently insists that any talk of probability is impossible unless ALL the possibilities (including the untestable ones) have been tested. Message 1661
RAZ says: "How do you determine "very improbable" without some basis where you have actually tested the possibilities rather than just assume your opinion/s are correct?"
Do you really think Bertrand Russel would agree that scientific conclusions expressed as more or less probable are dependent on testing the untestable in the way that RAZ perennially insists upon? Do we really have to falsify Last Thursdayism before we conclude that evolution by natural selection very probably actually occurred?
X writes:
Show me where he claimed ALL evidence based knowledge is not tentative!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most recently and most explicitly in Message 1661
But before that in all of his dimwitted scales, in all of his flawed but colourful charts and in all of his logic by numbers deductions. RAZ doesn't do uncertainty Xong. Because RAZ seems to believe that the whole of science can be reduced down to deductive logical arguments.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1664 by xongsmith, posted 09-11-2011 5:00 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 1687 of 1725 (633215)
09-13-2011 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1639 by Chuck77
09-10-2011 1:21 AM


Re: The Straggler Challenge
Chuck writes:
It's amusing to see Straggler call Xongsmith a militant atheist in almost every comment he makes now when he himself demonstrates it here everyday.
Faced with the second coming of Christ as a demonstrable fact I would readily concede that bluegenes theory had been falsified. Xongsmith however has stated that he would not. Xongsmith is playing a game of atheism by definitions.
X writes:
I do think the odds of your preposterous Armageddon Event to be on the same level as the molecules all getting together against Thermodynamic odds and presenting the same thing.
According to Xongsmith something such as the second coming of Christ combined with biblical Armageddon would NOT constitute evidence of the supernatural. He would pass off the whole thing as a thermodynamic anomoly rather than admit he was actually wrong.
Christians are exhalted into raptuous heavenly paradise, the dead come bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss, Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators all around you - But as long as a team of white coated experts are there to observe and document Xongsmith will sit there saying "Nothing to challenge any atheistic attitudes to the supernatural to mention here". Until these white coated experts decree something as "supernatural" there is not and cannot be anything actually supernatural.
Even as the white coated experts in question hastily publish their results in a peer reviewed journal, even as our white coated experts are cast into the abyss to be tormented for all eternity by demons they can (according to Xongsmith) congratulate themselves on their rational rejection of the supernatural..........
Xongsmith's position is as ridiculous an exercise in definitional dynamics as one could conceive of and his Anal Emma is as stupid as she sounds.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1639 by Chuck77, posted 09-10-2011 1:21 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1699 by xongsmith, posted 09-15-2011 4:20 AM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 1696 of 1725 (633537)
09-14-2011 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1693 by xongsmith
09-14-2011 1:11 PM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
Straggler writes:
Only in your own head does the demonstrable existence of an entity which exactly matches an established supernatural concept fail to falsify bluegenes theory.
X writes:
It up to the experts in the field.
Experts in which field?
Who decides whether a particular concept is supernatural or not? Did scientists decree that the God Thor is a supernatural being? No. Did scientists define Voldermort as a supernatural being? Apollo? Satan? No. No. And no again.
The supernaturality of these concepts has nothing to do with scientists. If there was any actual evidence of any of these sorts of beings actually existing the role of science would be to assess whether or not they actually exist and whether or not they had the miraculous abilities ascribed to them. It has nothing to do with a team of white coated experts rubber stamping the word "supernatural" on the forehead of Zeus.
And in the absence of any evidence of any such entity all of this definitional horse shit is entirely moot anyway.
X writes:
This is simply a failing of your own comprehension and an indication of your own "confirmation bias" approach.
Do you understand that supernatural entities could actually exist and bluegene's theory could still be true? Do you understand that even if no supernatiral entities actually exist bluegenes theory could still be false?
Because until you understand that this is about the evidenced source of such concepts rather than explictly about the existence of supernatural entities you are doomed to prattle on about anal Emma for ever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1693 by xongsmith, posted 09-14-2011 1:11 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024