|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scepticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3775 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness. 'Proven' is a pretty loaded word. Our established 'knowledge' of the universe is never proven, something I am sure you've agreed with outside of your philosophical debates. We may be able to draw inferences based on what we think we know, but we can never be absolutely certain that we are absolutely correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3775 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined:
|
vivid dreams are weak yet possible evidence as well as daily happenings that are beyond random coincidence...though I suppose you will challenge me to explain the difference between..say..a chance encounter and a divine appointment. Do you understand that humans are great at seeing patterns? We can see constellations in the sky. Does that mean those stars are lined up to make those particular objects? If so, why do some cultures see completely different objects in the same quadrant of the night sky? The point is that you are counting the hits and forgetting the misses. In other words the fallacy of observational selection, or the enumeration of favorable circumstances. You have a dream that you have an accident and in the morning you decide to walk to work and hope to prevent the accident, which you happen to do. Perhaps you dreamed you won the lottery and you buy a ticket. You don't win. Which dreams do you believe and which ones do you write off as 'just a dream'? How do you discern between dreams? Is a sex dream divinely inspired, telling you that you ought to go out and get laid, or is it just your brain working out a desire (or fear) you had?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3775 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
One must stand for something or else they will fall for anything! Why can you not stand for being good to others without some invisible god telling you to do so? Is your moral compass so damaged that you require the god of the bible to tell you to treat others with kindness? Skepticism isn't a belief, it is a way of discerning a path towards knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
'Proven' is a pretty loaded word. ... Yeah, I agree. I take his "but recognising its incompleteness" to refer to the necessary tentativity of scientific conclusions. One could say "what is known" but that would have similar problems and it would get back to the previous discussion on another thread of the differences between "KNOW" and "know" (using Jar's distinctions with capitalizations) Or we could use validated
3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is validated, but recognising its incompleteness. Note that this also implies a touch of open-mindedness is necessary. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : omby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
'Proven' is a pretty loaded word. Our established 'knowledge' of the universe is never proven, something I am sure you've agreed with outside of your philosophical debates. We may be able to draw inferences based on what we think we know, but we can never be absolutely certain that we are absolutely correct.
Rene Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy because he started at the point where his own thinking proved to him that he existed and was real.You can start there, too. Once you have that foundation for existence, you canuse the Scientific Method to prove the wiggling toes are yours, or that your hands are doing exactly what you THINK you are telling them to do. Step by step thereafter, Empiricism allows you to ask peers if they too sense the same observations and facts that you know to exit.When all observers agree with one another, you have proven things, like putting our hand in the fire willl always get it burnt, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Skepticism isn't a belief, it is a way of discerning a path towards knowledge.
Maybe... But we see the people who are skeptical of Evolution because it confronts their faith in the way they understand Genesis.And, here, we see the other people who are skeptical of admitting the Big Bang was "In the beginning" because they would have to concede the first verse of Genesis actually is literally true. Skeptism is actuallyu the best way to make sure no one "proves" anything to you simply because for that to happen, ONLY you can say it was proven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
And, here, we see the other people who are skeptical of admitting the Big Bang was "In the beginning" because they would have to concede the first verse of Genesis actually is literally true. Well no not exactly kofh2u. The 'In the beginning' part is ok. It is the 'God created...' part that is unsupported. If the first verse of Genesis said something more like what Steven Weinberg said,
quote: then I think that even the most sceptical would have to take notice. Weinberg said what he said at the end of half a life times worth of accumulating bits of verifying information and not at the end of a vision quest in the desert. Furthermore, the information that he was accumulating had been verified by thousands before him. Being sceptical is about accumulating points of verification. Imagine 'true' and 'false' as opposite ends of the same scale. Info that verifies an idea moves it toward the truth. Info that conflicts with an idea moves it toward false. Info from two eyes is better than info from one eye. The fact that you successfully employ scepticism in most other areas of your life is the best evidence that being sceptical is the right way to approach the world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
When confronted with an un-evidenced proposition, the consequences of which are dire if ignored, you ignore it. The un-evidenced proposition in question is not treated as a realistic possibility. The proposition is treated to all practical intents and purposes as if it were NOT true. This is indistinguishable from taking a defacto atheist approach to un-evidenced propositions. This is indistinguishable from taking a sceptical approach to un-evidenced propositions.
Despite all your talk of proof and your relentless insistence on applying the term agnostic in a way so generic as to be pointless and meaningless (not proved rather than disproved ...it could be true and it could be false — This ultimately applies to everything and anything RAZ) your approach is in practise indistinguishable from that of the skeptic. As Dr A has pointed out in this thread — Everyone is a skeptic except when they want to give some particular favored idea a free ride. Now we don’t need to go over the particular ideas you want to give a free ride to in this thread. In this thread we need only note that in the overwhelming majority of cases your position with regard to un-evidenced propositions is identical to that of the skeptic. A Defacto atheist position (albeit dressed up in sematic waffle)
RAZD writes: What is reality? How do you know? Straggler writes: Well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? RAZD writes: And yet you didn't answer it. Well it would be difficult to cover the entirety of epistemological thinking in a single sentance, paragraph or post. We would be doing well to cover it in a single thread. But that is ultimately what this thread is about. So I suggest we look at some proposed methods of knowing and see if we can reach common ground on how to evaluate them. I have already put forward Bob's epistemology. So let's look at that a bit more.
Straggler writes: Is Bob's world view equally as valid as a more scientific world view? RAZD writes: Amusingly, I am pretty sure that he would think it was more valid, otherwise he wouldn't behave the way he does. Exactly. Bob is convinced that his world view is superior to those who hold a more empiricist world view. Those who hold a more empiricist world view are convinced that theirs is superior to Bob's divine-revalationist epistemological approach. More specifically Bob's world view results in him concluding that the Earth is less than a 1,000 years old. A scientific world view results in the conclusion that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. So we are faced with different specific conclusions based on different methods of knowing.
Straggler writes: Is Bob's conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more or less likely to be correct than the scientific conclusion? RAZD writes: What does "more correct" mean Well if the Earth really is less than 1,000 years old Bob's conclusion regarding this matter is "more correct". If the Earth is billions of years old the scientific conclusion is "more correct". Surely this is obvious.......
RAZD writes: Now when I ask what is reality, you seem to be saying that reality is "more correct" -- making a circular argument rather than answering the question. Reality is that which we are ultimately trying to obtain knowledge of. Whatever epistemology we may or may not adopt the aim is to acquire knowledge of whatever reality it is that exists.
RAZ writes: Indeed ... how does Hypothetical Bob decide? Bob adopted his epistomology because it was subjectively appealing to him. Do you think this a sensible approach to selecting a method of knowledge acquisition? What other options are there? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When confronted with an un-evidenced proposition, the consequences of which are dire if ignored, you ignore it. The un-evidenced proposition in question is not treated as a realistic possibility. The proposition is treated to all practical intents and purposes as if it were NOT true. This is indistinguishable from taking a defacto atheist approach to un-evidenced propositions. This is indistinguishable from taking a sceptical approach to un-evidenced propositions. Curiously, it would appear that you seem to spend way to much time in make-believe land, rather than discuss the issues of skepticism, open-mindedness, and ascertaining what reality means. If this is where your brand of skeptical thinking takes you then perhaps I don't need to consider it valid. No, I behave as if the claim is not validated by evidence -- you are the one that makes the leap of faith that it is NOT true. If the dire consequences began to occur, then I would be in the position of saying "well now there is evidence on which to base a valid conclusion" -- you, on the other hand, would need to change your opinion. In other words you are not sufficiently skeptical of your own position\opinion ... Remember this?
You keep running off to (D). That isn't skeptical imhysao.
As Dr A has pointed out in this thread — Everyone is a skeptic except when they want to give some particular favored idea a free ride. ... Such as you wanting to conclude that it is not true even though you do not have empirical evidence of this? Amusing. Everyone wants to give their worldview a free ride when it comes to judging situations -- it is basic to how people behave. Now I notice that you did not answer another question I asked:
What do you consider more rational behavior:
Curiously I would find both A and B positions bizarre if not delusional. Would you agree that A and B are rather irrational behaviors? Yes No
RAZD writes: What is reality? How do you know? Well it would be difficult to cover the entirety of epistemological thinking in a single sentance, paragraph or post. We would be doing well to cover it in a single thread. But that is ultimately what this thread is about. So I suggest we look at some proposed methods of knowing and see if we can reach common ground on how to evaluate them. I have already put forward Bob's epistemology. So let's look at that a bit more. More word games and evasion, I begin to think you have no idea ...
Exactly. Bob is convinced that his world view is superior to those who hold a more empiricist world view. Those who hold a more empiricist world view are convinced that theirs is superior to Bob's divine-revalationist epistemological approach. More specifically Bob's world view results in him concluding that the Earth is less than a 1,000 years old. A scientific world view results in the conclusion that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. So we are faced with different specific conclusions based on different methods of knowing. Bob adopted his epistomology because it was subjectively appealing to him. Do you think this a sensible approach to selecting a method of knowledge acquisition? What other options are there? But that is what everybody does, it's part of your worldview. How do we know what is sensible -- other than by comparing it to our worldview? If it's consilient with your worldview then you will think it is sensible, and if it is contrary to your worldview then you will think it is not sensible. The question is now how people think and behave, but whether or not we can ascertain what reality really is, and then how can we tell which world views are atuned to reality. Talking about Bob is avoiding this issue.
Well if the Earth really is less than 1,000 years old Bob's conclusion regarding this matter is "more correct". If the Earth is billions of years old the scientific conclusion is "more correct". Surely this is obvious....... But how do we know what the age of the earth really is ... by knowing what is "more correct" ... but how can we tell what is "more correct" ... by being more consilient with reality ... how do we know what reality is? ... by knowing what is "more correct"... And around we go a second (third, fourth, fifth?) time. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
Again, your reading comorehension is terrible here. The Bibke does NOT say that the Earth was "made." It says the Heavens and Earth were CREATED. You should pay more attention. The very words that you quoted me saying are thus: "The first sentence plainly reads "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth."" My claim is that the bible says the earth was created. Don't tell me that my reading comprehension is terrible and then repeat what I had intitially said as if you are correcting me. Compounded with the fact that you have singled out a non-point and completely missed what the actual issue was (that the earth did not exist at the point of the big bang), it is YOUR reading comprehension that is in question here. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Well no not exactly kofh2u. The 'In the beginning' part is ok. It is the 'God created...' part that is unsupported. If the first verse of Genesis said something more like what Steven Weinberg said,
Yes, these people have refused to goas far as to agree that Genesis is correct about the Big Bang beginning, simply because they aare arguing there is no god.But they are confused in their desire to deny God that even they must attribute the event to a First Cause which itself is the only supernatural event they, the scientists, nmake a belief or axiom about . These scientists argue that for every observed aEffect, there is always a Cause.But the First Cause they excuse from this rule. They ask us to believe in some Force behind the Big Bang which is god like, in so many ways by their own definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
No, there is no one making any commentary on the existence of any god when they reject your very foolish revision of the bible.
We are only rejecting what YOU CLAIM the bible says. Some do believe in the Christian god, some do not. That isn't the argument. And there is no mystery as to what "force" is. We aren't talking about Star Wars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
But they are confused in their desire to deny God
There is no conspiracy. Scientists just want to see what is there. The topic is about how we make sure that what we think we see is actually what is there. The universe can only be examined through the use of your 5 senses. Each one of them measuring the frequency and amplitude of energy. Our brain processes the inputs and then makes predictions. We then verify those predictions with more sensory input. The problem for the brain is that sensory input is both incomplete and sometimes contradictory. That is to say that things are not always as they appear to be. The cool thing is that our brains have evolved to deal with this by constantly updating the sensory input and revising or confirming the predictions. In other words, your brain is sceptical by nature. The problem comes when the brain forms a prediction that can not be verified by the senses and yet that prediction takes a position equal to things that can be verified by the senses. This is known as taking leave of one's senses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You don't think the fact that your interpretation is grossly strained and owes far more to your (often mistaken) views of the current scientific consensus have rather more to do with it ? For instance, if the text is so vague that it could be read as referring to either the quark-gluon plasma closely following the Big Bang or the accretion disk that eventually became the Earth (both of which you have claimed for the same text), then it's hardly true to say that it accurately describes either one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It seems that the main opposition to skepticism comes from people who are aggressively wrong. This opposition is clear evidence of the value and correctness of the skeptical position.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024