Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9206 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Fyre1212
Post Volume: Total: 919,412 Year: 6,669/9,624 Month: 9/238 Week: 9/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Antecedent Probability Principle, the Proportional Principle & Carl Sagan
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 72 (657937)
04-01-2012 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tangle
04-01-2012 6:28 AM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
Related question: Are string theorists rational?
Tangle writes:
I've no idea. But the search for whether they exist is rational.
Wha?? We know that string theorists exist. Lol.
Seriously. I request that you expand on the reasons why you believe the pursuit of string theory is rational. Or we can use general relativity. I think the discussion will tease out some nuances in your definition of rationality.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 6:28 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 7:40 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 32 of 72 (657938)
04-01-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by NoNukes
04-01-2012 7:07 AM


NoNukes writes:
Exactly so. And people accept Biblical miracles for similar reasons. They have decided to trust the accounts of people who have written and testified about allegedly witnessed events.
They accept biblical (and other) miracles based on unevidenced beliefs. That is irrational.
Further, with few exceptions, those who disagree don't claim that the events, had they actually occurred, would not be miraculous; instead those skeptics doubt that the miracles happened at all.
The distinction is largely irrelevant as we can't even trust the accounts of the miracles to be accurate. But to take one from the NT at random, the raising of Lazarus either didn't happen or could be explained naturally - pick one, most disbelievers wouldn't care which. We have no evidence for any of it so the only rational position is to be totally skeptical.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2012 7:07 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 7:27 AM Tangle has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 72 (657939)
04-01-2012 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tangle
04-01-2012 7:22 AM


They accept biblical (and other) miracles based on unevidenced beliefs. That is irrational.
What is your definition of miracles? If something happened to me that is out of the ordinary, and I was praying for it, how is that unevidenced? What do you arttibute it to? Luck? Coincidence?
You can take my word for it can't you? Just like you did your moms with the iron?
The distinction is largely irrelevant as we can't even trust the accounts of the miracles to be accurate.
Of course, but you trust your mom about the iron right? Maybe not some mom you never met but you do in fact trust somebody.
But to take one from the NT at random, the raising of Lazarus either didn't happen or could be explained naturally - pick one, most disbelievers wouldn't care which. We have no evidence for any of it so the only rational position is to be totally skeptical.
I don't get it. Are you saying no ones ever been brough back to life after they died?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 7:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2012 1:40 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 5:00 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 34 of 72 (657940)
04-01-2012 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
04-01-2012 7:16 AM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
NoNukes writes:
Wha?? We know that string theorists exist. Lol.
Well as a trivial point, we obviously know string theories exist. What we don't know yet is if they are correct. So it's rational to work further to see if they are.
Seriously. I request that you expand on the reasons why you believe the pursuit of string theory is rational. Or we can use general relativity. I think the discussion will tease out some nuances in your definition of rationality.
Why stick to those two theories? I'm happy to say that the search for knowledge about our world is always rational and seems self evident - it's on you to say why it isn't.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2012 7:16 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 7:45 AM Tangle has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 72 (657941)
04-01-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
04-01-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
Tangle writes:
Why stick to those two theories? I'm happy to say that the search for knowledge about our world is always rational and seems self evident - it's on you to say why it isn't.
Seriously? So you think as long as something is being explored it's rational then no matter what is being explored? Then whats the problem you're having with miracles?
NoNukes asked why you think exploring string theory is rational. Surley you don't think it's rational just because they are exploring it right? What are your reasons?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 7:40 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 10:09 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 72 (657942)
04-01-2012 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tangle
04-01-2012 6:19 AM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
I don't care whether Einstein was behaving rationally when he spent ten years working on relativity or not - I do care whether the result of his work is rational because I need to trust it for my sat nav.
You are of course free to discuss what you will, and to avoid discussing what you wish not to discuss.
But it is in fact the case that nothing we are discussing here matters one wit. The question is not irrelevant if we are actually discussing the general principle outlined in your OP.
There is no real point in addressing my question re: string theory. It is as hypothetical as is the child/hot iron/electrical socket example.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 6:19 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 10:14 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 37 of 72 (657952)
04-01-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Chuck77
04-01-2012 7:45 AM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
Chuck writes:
Seriously? So you think as long as something is being explored it's rational then no matter what is being explored?
No, I don't think that at all.
For example, I don't think that the search for the ark on Mount Arafat is rational because we have no evidence that the ark ever existed and huge quantities of evidence that says it doesn't.
But to be consistent, I would say that if an irrational person ever searched for the ark and found what could be its remains, it would be vaguely rational to properly test it because there would then be some evidence worth testing.
I think that reasearching String Theory is rational because there's a logic basis for the investigation.
Then whats the problem you're having with miracles?
I answer that in the origianl post.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 7:45 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2012 10:17 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 38 of 72 (657954)
04-01-2012 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
04-01-2012 7:50 AM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
NoNukes writes:
There is no real point in addressing my question re: string theory. It is as hypothetical as is the child/hot iron/electrical socket example.
Then perhaps you could explain what point you are trying to make, because I'm completely missing it at the moment. Obviously.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2012 7:50 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 72 (657956)
04-01-2012 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tangle
04-01-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
I think that reasearching String Theory is rational because there's a logic basis for the investigation.
And what do you think is that logical basis?
In any event, it seems to me that if you are not prepared to say that the reason for researching String Theory is based on evidence, then you are not being consistent with the approach described in your OP.
Edited by NoNukes, : remove an extra negation...

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 10:09 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 12:04 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 40 of 72 (657970)
04-01-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
04-01-2012 10:17 AM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
NoNukes writes:
In any event, it seems to me that if you are not prepared to say that the reason for researching String Theory is based on evidence, then you are not being consistent with the approach described in your OP.
er, I AM saying that it's rational to research string theory and any other evidenced based subject.
That's all I've ever said, so I'm still confused as to what YOU are saying.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2012 10:17 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2012 2:15 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 43 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 2:28 PM Tangle has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 41 of 72 (657975)
04-01-2012 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Chuck77
04-01-2012 7:27 AM


I don't get it. Are you saying no ones ever been brough back to life after they died?
This whole statement is fraught with issues.
Define died.
Give an example of someone that was brought back to life after an extended period. Lets compare them with the Lazarus story.
I know of no one brought back from what I would consider death.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 7:27 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 72 (657981)
04-01-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
04-01-2012 12:04 PM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
That's all I've ever said, so I'm still confused as to what YOU are saying.
I'm saying that general relativity was not evidence based prior to about 1915, and that Einstein's pursuit of it beginning in about 1907 or so was not triggered by evidence. It is the case that we currently have lots of experimental verification now.
I'm saying that string theory is currently a mathematical, unevidenced pursuit. The term "theory" in the expression may very well turn out to be mere euphemism. String theory may very well turn out to be utterly untestable.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 12:04 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 3:34 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 72 (657982)
04-01-2012 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
04-01-2012 12:04 PM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
Tangle writes:
er, I AM saying that it's rational to research string theory and any other evidenced based subject.
Yeah, and that's the problem. What current evidence is there for string theory? About the same as miracles? Yet you say it's rational to explore string theory, why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 12:04 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2012 3:47 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 44 of 72 (657986)
04-01-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NoNukes
04-01-2012 2:15 PM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
NoNukes writes:
I'm saying that general relativity was not evidence based prior to about 1915, and that Einstein's pursuit of it beginning in about 1907 or so was not triggered by evidence. It is the case that we currently have lots of experimental verification now.
I'm saying that string theory is currently a mathematical, unevidenced pursuit. The term "theory" in the expression may very well turn out to be mere euphemism. String theory may very well turn out to be utterly untestable.
I know nothing about string theory and less about the historicity of Einsten's work but I do know that both Einstein and the guys working on string theory were/are trying to solve a problem in physics that exists or existed. They use mathematical tools and knowledge that pre-existed to create models of our world which can be tested by others.
In modern times the string theory guys need to provide evidence to the funders that pay their salaries that their work is worth continuing and may provide more information about our world. It's a rational process.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2012 2:15 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2012 7:16 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9580
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 45 of 72 (657987)
04-01-2012 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Chuck77
04-01-2012 2:28 PM


Re: Sigh. I'm sure those goal posts were right here...
Chuck writes:
Yeah, and that's the problem. What current evidence is there for string theory? About the same as miracles? Yet you say it's rational to explore string theory, why?
I have no idea what evidence there is for string theory, luckily if you need to know the answer, you can check the wiki on it. But do you doubt that the process being used to build the theory is rational? Do you think that it's likely that the models, mathematics and physics that they use to establish it lack evidence? Or that the problems they are trying to solve are real?
Now apply the same tests to miracles.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 2:28 PM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 4:20 PM Tangle 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