|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scepticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
On it's own terms we cannot have any confidence in the legitimacy of your scale of confidence.
Similarly by the terms of your wider argument we must take an 'unconvinced' position towards your wider argument.
RAZD writes: And yet I really do not have sufficient information to enable me to decide (your definition), and I remain unconvinced (my definition) as a result.
RAZ writes: Now if you really feel that a decision is necessary, then you end up at (B) and make a guess based on your worldview opinions\biases\etc rather than on verifiable objective evidence. Is the position you are advocating in this thread derived from verifiable objective evidence? Is the position you are advocating in his thread a guess? Are you convinced or unconvinced by your arguments in this thread? For the record - I am unconvinced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In Message 114 you were kind enough to give us a long list of things that you are not convinced of.
I have a simple question for you. Are you convinced of your position in this thread?
Straggler writes: On it's own terms we cannot have any confidence in the legitimacy of your scale of confidence. RAZ writes: Why? In your confidence scale you stipulate the criteria you require to rationally justify confidence in a given proposition. Yet if we treat your confidence scale itself as a proposition (a proposition as to how confidence can be rationally acquired) then we see that it fails to meet it's own criteria. Similarly we can consider your little chart showing how you personally distinguish between decisions that you think qualify as "logical conclusions" and decisions which you classify as a "guess" or "opinion". Question: How did you decide upon this distinction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
1: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is a realistic proposition and action should be taken to avoid damage to my children's brains (i.e. I should evacuate my children to a gardenless place)
2: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is not a realistic proposition and there is no need to take any practical action to avoid it. Straggler writes: Does your open-minded approach allow us to distinguish between opinion 1 and opinion 2 in terms of either one being any more or less rational than the other? RAZ writes: Strictly speaking the answer is no. Straggler writes: Why not? RAZ writes: Because, strictly speaking, neither of the two choices you provide are rational. In what sense is the behaviour described in 2 irrational?
RAZ writes: If you base your actions, worldview, etc, on evidence based concepts, and are consistently skeptical of any non-evidenced concepts....... Then you would come to 2 as a conclusion. If not why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Are you convinced of your position in this thread? RAZ writes: As much as I can be about most positions. According to Message 114 you are not convinced by most positions. So would you classify yourself as convinced or not convinced with regard to your position in this thread?
Straggler writes: In your confidence scale you stipulate the criteria you require to rationally justify confidence in a given proposition. Yet if we treat your confidence scale itself as a proposition (a proposition as to how confidence can be rationally acquired) then we see that it fails to meet it's own criteria. RAZ writes: You still do not explain why you feel this way. It has nothing to do with feeling and everything to do with the criteria you yourself have stipulated in your scale of confidence. Is your confidence scale derived from any evidence? If the answer to this question is ‘No’ then, by it’s own terms, it qualifies as a No confidence concept. If however you are claiming that your scale is derived from evidence now would be the time to present that evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
1: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is a realistic proposition and action should be taken to avoid damage to my children's brains (i.e. I should evacuate my children to a gardenless place)
2: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is not a realistic proposition and there is no need to take any practical action to avoid it. 3: In order to actively pursue more evidence pertaining to the possibility of my children being brain damaged by the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden I should take my children to the hospital every six months and insist that they are brain scanned for any signs of potential brain damage being caused by the aforementioned elephants. Obviously you don’t like 1 and 2 so, with your insistence on the pursuit of more information in mind, I have added 3. Would 3 qualify as a rational course of action by the terms of your approach?
RAZ writes: If you base your actions, worldview, etc, on evidence based concepts, and are consistently skeptical of any non-evidenced concepts....... Straggler writes: Then you would come to 2 as a conclusion. If not why not? RAZ writes: No. because of being equally skeptical of both positions, and remaining unconvinced until there was evidence one way or the other. But there is only one non-evidenced concept here. That non-evidenced concept is ethereal elephants (and the brain damage associated with their inaudible trumpeting). If one is consistently sceptical of non-evidenced concepts one would be sceptical of the existence of ethereal elephants - No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
1: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is a realistic proposition and action should be taken to avoid damage to my children's brains (i.e. I should evacuate my children to a gardenless place)
2: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is not a realistic proposition and there is no need to take any practical action to avoid it. 3: In order to actively pursue more evidence pertaining to the possibility of my children being brain damaged by the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden I should take my children to the hospital every six months and insist that they are brain scanned for any signs of potential brain damage being caused by the aforementioned elephants. Straggler writes: Obviously you don’t like 1 and 2 so, with your insistence on the pursuit of more information in mind, I have added 3. Would 3 qualify as a rational course of action by the terms of your approach? RAZ writes: And if the test is negative, would that conclusively show that the risk did not exist? Are you positive that this testing would show any and all possible results of brain damage? You tell me!!!! I am asking your advice because I don't want my children's brains put at risk by any subjective, preudoskeptical or irrational beliefs that I (or anyone else) may hold. As much as it ires me I am seeking your advice as the resident expert on skepticism. I have stated the two criteria that you need concern yourself with: [1] I want to safeguard my children from suffering brain damage.[2] I want to act in a manner that is rational. My question to you was this - Is 3 a rational course of action as far as your approach to skepticism is concerned? Will you answer that question?
RAZD writes: Do you assume that this assumption based process is pragmatic? If all 3 options - Taking practical action, not taking practical action and the active pursuit of more evidence are all ruled out as irrational - Then you need to tell me how your approach can possibly meet the criteria specified with regard to the proposition at hand.
RAZ writes: If you base your actions, worldview, etc, on evidence based concepts, and are consistently skeptical of any non-evidenced concepts....... Straggler writes: But there is only one non-evidenced concept here. That non-evidenced concept is ethereal elephants (and the brain damage associated with their inaudible trumpeting). If one is consistently sceptical of non-evidenced concepts one would be sceptical of the existence of ethereal elephants RAZ writes: Technically speaking, this is, of course, wrong ... You do agree that ethereal elephants are an unevidenced concept don't you? In which case scepticism towards this concept seems justified. Are you possibly conflating the concepts we are assessing with the assessments being made.....? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Are you convinced of your position in this thread? RAZ writes: As much as I can be about most positions. According to Message 114 you are not convinced by most positions. So would you classify yourself as convinced or not convinced with regard to your position in this thread?
Straggler writes: Is your confidence scale derived from any evidence? If the answer to this question is ‘No’ then, by it’s own terms, it qualifies as a No confidence concept. If however you are claiming that your scale is derived from evidence now would be the time to present that evidence RAZ writes: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me on the classification of the two examples given? I've run them by some people and all have agreed so far... Why would I place myself on a scale which is itself a "No confidence concept" based on an argument that by it's own criteria demands that one be "unconvinced" by it.....? But if you are seeking to suggest that your little scale is descriptive rather than prescriptive because you have found some people that agree with a couple of your confidence assessments then it obviously falls apart under minimal further examination. You only have to look at this forum or poll the beliefs of your fellow countrymen to see that there are many who have considerable confidence in concepts which defy well established scientific knowledge (e.g. Young Earth Creationists). Yet there is no place for the existence of such confidence on your scale despite being widespread. Is your scale intended to be descriptive or prescriptive RAZ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This has nothing to do with 'world views'.
This is about objectively assessing whether there is any real risk of brain damage from the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your ‘world view’ has no bearing on whether or not anyone is actually going to suffer brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants.
Your 'world view' is of no consequence to reality. Reality doesn’t care about your ‘world view’. Meanwhile a sceptical approach is about reliably discerning what is likely to be real and what isn’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such - Is almost certainly wrong in their ethereal-elephant 'world view' conclusion.
Ditto for all other such propositions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: As I said: without information to support a valid conclusion you make up your mind according you your worldview. And as I said - Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such - Is almost certainly wrong in their ethereal-elephant 'world view' conclusion.
RAZD writes: An open-minded skeptic would conclude that there was insufficient information to make a decision Insufficient information to make a decision about whether or not brain damage inducing ethereal elephants are a realistic possibility..... Oh dear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Who says it was made-up rather than derived from a subjective experience...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: And as I said - Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such - Is almost certainly wrong in their ethereal-elephant 'world view' conclusion. RAZ writes: Which would be a reasonable response if that is what I was saying. I didn't say YOU. I said ANYONE. Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such - Is almost certainly wrong in their ethereal-elephant 'world view' conclusion.
RAZD writes: It seems you cannot comprehend the simple concept of not reaching a conclusion ... ignoring the issue until there is more information. Of course I can comprehend not making a decision. But we have all the information we need to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants (or any other similarly unevidenced phenomenon) is unlikely to be a real. That is the conclusion an evidence led skeptical approach leads to.
RAZ writes: That you would advocate taking an inconsistent approach to skepticism? The conclusion that brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants are very probably not a real phenomeon is entirely consistent with an evidence led skeptical approach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Firstly - By it's own terms your little flow chart isn't based on any evidence so it can be ignored (C). It's just another of your typically pointless graphical intrusions.
Secondly - An evidence led skeptical approach leads to the conclusion that brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants are very probably not a real phenomeon. That your approach to skepticism doesn't allow you to accept or reach that conclusion merely demonstrates the problems with your approach.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024