|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scepticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The objective evidence is in Message 37, where Straggler used the elephant scenario as a made-up example to make a point in this debate. It was presented as a hypothetical scenario. All hypothetical scenarios are by definition made up, but the purpose is to consider how decisions would be made. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The objective evidence is in Message 37, where Straggler used the elephant scenario as a made-up example to make a point in this debate.
It was presented as a hypothetical scenario. All hypothetical scenarios are by definition made up, but the purpose is to consider how decisions would be made. Okay, that's what I was getting at in Message 196. You seemed to know that it was a hypothetical, and therefore made-up, but were replying as though you were under the assumption that you didn't know that it was, in fact, made-up. And in that sense you were making sense. Otherwise, you weren't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Objective evidence of what? ... Or that people make things up? Evidence that people sometimes make things up is not evidence that something stated by a person is de facto made up, and the reason this is so is because we also have objective evidence that people sometimes do not make things up.
A ↠ B does not mean that B ↠ A If A then B does not mean If B then A This is the core fallacy of bluegenes argument in the great debate.
I rely on objective evidence. Objective evidence that people make things up. Objective evidence about how scenarios look when people make things up. (Context, evidence for the claim, repeatability...) Objective evidence about how scenarios look when people do not make things up. (Context, evidence for the claim, repeatability...) Then I ask others to see if they get the same results. Some will, some won't. Then I ask them about how they got the same results. If all the ones who agree used my method, and all those who disagree did not... then it is objectively made up. That some do not shows it is not objective but subjective ... that it is opinion.
No opinion required. ... in your opinion. You make an assumption relating "context" based on your worldview regarding how things "look" ...
The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. ...seems like we have valid, empirical evidence that when the boy cries wolf, we can logically induce that there actually is no wolf. Observed by a different group at a different time. One boy charged with watching sheep to protect them from wolvesThe boy cries wolf ... no wolf observed by party that goes to check. Two boys left to watch sheep Both boys cry wolf ... no wolf observed by party that goes to check. Three boys left to watch sheep All boys cry wolf ... What is your move at that point? Assume that all three are making it up" or that the wolf may be disappearing when the cry goes up? Isn't it more appropriate to get more information, see if the observation is replicated? 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: |
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. Which would be a reasonable response if that is what I was saying. It seems you cannot comprehend the simple concept of not reaching a conclusion ... ignoring the issue until there is more information.
Insufficient information to make a decision about whether or not brain damage inducing ethereal elephants are a realistic possibility..... Oh dear. Insufficient information to make a decision means insufficient information to make a decision. This means waiting\abstaining\ignoring until more information is available. It does NOT mean deciding pro or con. You started this with a hypothetical situation and questioned how consistent an open-minded skeptic position would be. I have told you. Many times. Consistently. That you would advocate taking an inconsistent approach to skepticism? Oh dear. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Pedant -- a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
RAZD writes: Evidence that people sometimes make things up is not evidence that something stated by a person is de facto made up, and the reason this is so is because we also have objective evidence that people sometimes do not make things up. This is very true. Although irrelevant. What makes you think that having evidence something is de facto made up is required?Such a thing, actually, is impossible to ever achieve. In fact, there is no observation of reality, no matter how many times it's repeated or verified... that it can become de facto knowledge. Because we don't know the future. Not that you exist.Not the formula F=ma Not the laws of thermodynamics Not a single observation of reality can ever be known "de facto" anything as long as we are unable to observe all of time. Therefore, we're not trying to find any evidence that anything is de facto made up.We're just trying to find evidence to plan for the future about things being made up. This is the core fallacy of bluegenes argument in the great debate. Yes, it is your core issue with bluegenes' argument.And the response is the same... you're simply wrong for implying that anything de facto about reality is required... or even possible. All we can do is plan for the future with the information we have. We will never know anything about reality de facto unless there comes a time where we can know the future. Do you know the future? I'm going to go with "no."Therefore, all you can do as well is plan for the future with the information available. You, too, must deal with the issue that we can never know anything at all about reality "de facto" because we cannot observe the future. That some do not shows it is not objective but subjective ... that it is opinion. You seem to imply that just because we have objective evidence for two different possibilities then the resulting conclusion must therefore be an opinion. Um... This is not true. You are right that there is objective evidence people make things up.And there is objective evidence people do not make things up. You are right that there is objective evidence about how things appear when then are made up.You are right that there is objective evidence about how things appear when they are not made up. We can, then, look at the situation presented, and objectively see if it fits better in one group over the other. If it can... then we can make an objective conclusion (that may or may not be correct).If it cannot... then we move onto opinion (if we're going to force a decision). But just because there are two different objective options doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily an opinion... that's ridiculous.
in your opinion. You make an assumption relating "context" based on your worldview regarding how things "look" ... No. I make an objective conclusion based on objective evidence. Here it is again: The boy cries wolf... no wolf.The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. You are correct. We have objective evidence that people make things up, and that they do not.We also have objective evidence that when this boy cries wolf... there is no wolf. Therefore, objectively, this evidence sides more with a boy who makes things up then with a boy who does not. Therefore, it is an objective conclusion that the next time this boy cries wolf, there will be no wolf.This conclusion may or may not be objectively true.. (it would have to be verified when the scenario presents itself again) but the process in arriving at this conclusion is itself objective... and that's what we're discussing. There is nothing "de facto" about this, but there doesn't need to be, either.
Isn't it more appropriate to get more information, see if the observation is replicated? The observation has already been replicated. If the implications of your question were valid, you would never decide to do anything at all, you would constantly get more information before all your decisions. And you would die because you would not decide to eat before it was too late.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I would like to present a new scenario to see if we can agree on anything at all.
In my experience, simple is better than complicated for finding common ground. Here is the new situation:
quote: That's it, just once. Do you agree that we have objective evidence that when the boy cries wolf there is no wolf? I'm not talking about good objective evidence, or lots of it or even enough for a confident conclusion.I'm not talking about whether or not this evidence should lead one to believe or disbelieve the boy next time. I'm just wondering if you accept this observation as objective evidence or not. I say that it is objective evidence because it was verified. If you agree, please move on. If not, just disregard the below section and we'll work on how to identify objective evidence in the first place. Next step:
quote: That's it. We just hear the boy in the distance crying "wolf" to the villagers. These are my thoughts, feel free to say whether or not you agree or disagree with them:
I am interested to know which parts you disagree with (if any), and why... at your leisure, of course. Edited by Stile, : Quick correction before anybody sees it. That means, if you saw it before I corrected it... you're nobody! Ha! Take that! Logicked!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
I don't like your whole wolf scenario.
We know objectively that wolves exist and we can infer from the villagers' fear of wolves that they exist in the vicinity. The failure to find evidence of a wolf on any particular occasion or series of occasions does not change the fact that wolves do exist in the vicinity. The failure of any or all attempts to find a wolf has no effect on the probability of the next wolf report being accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: I don't like your whole wolf scenario. Okay. What do you think it's attempting to imply?
We know objectively that wolves exist and we can infer from the villagers' fear of wolves that they exist in the vicinity. The failure to find evidence of a wolf on any particular occasion or series of occasions does not change the fact that wolves do exist in the vicinity. The failure of any or all attempts to find a wolf has no effect on the probability of the next wolf report being accurate. Okay. How does any of this change whether or not the observations are objective?How does any of this change whether or not a conclusion based on the observations is an evidenced-based, objective conclusion? I like the wolf example because it helps a lot in showing the difference between an evidence-based, objective conclusion and reality. We can have tons of evidence that the boy is wrong and there is no wolf...This evidence can lead us to an evidence-based, objective conclusion about what to expect when the boy cries wolf. None of this has any effect whatsoever on the reality of the wolf. I think one of RAZD's issues, and I think it's rather prevalent in the general population... is that some people think that just because it's objective and evidenced... then it's necessarily "real." This is complete and utter bullshit. Anyone who thinks this is missing a fundamental idea in how the scientific method works. They may be able to use and mimic the scientific method... but they do not understand it. Edited by Stile, : I was all excited about posting a message with no typos or spelling mistakes. Then I realized I was feeling sick. Yup. Sick. And the dog ate my homework.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
The failure to find evidence of a wolf on any particular occasion or series of occasions does not change the fact that wolves do exist in the vicinity. The failure of any or all attempts to find a wolf has no effect on the probability of the next wolf report being accurate. A mad genius builds a 'wolf detector'. Every day the 'wolf detector' goes off, but no wolves are evident. After 365 days, only one wolf is found after the alarm went off on one day. If this is representative - does this not imply that the chances of the wolf alarm correctly detecting a wolf is 1/365 and the chances of it being a false positive are 364/365? Therefore - would it not be true that multiple false positives actually do effect the probability that the next alarm will be correct? "The race of man, while sheep in credulity, are wolves for conformity." - Carl Van Doren
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is very true. Although irrelevant. When you ignore the relevance.
What makes you think that having evidence something is de facto made up is required? Such a thing, actually, is impossible to ever achieve. In fact, there is no observation of reality, no matter how many times it's repeated or verified... that it can become de facto knowledge. Because we don't know the future. Not that you exist.Not the formula F=ma Not the laws of thermodynamics Not a single observation of reality can ever be known "de facto" anything as long as we are unable to observe all of time. Which is irrelevant to the point I was making. Let's turn it around: people make observations that are not made up (the earth circles the sun for instance) Therefore all observations people are true ... which is an obvious fallacy. Is a new observation by one person factual or made up? You don't know, and you don't know, because it has not been validated not because you can magically tell whether it is made up or not. Assuming it is factual is an opinionAssuming it is made up is an opinion Therefore, we're not trying to find any evidence that anything is de facto made up. We're just trying to find evidence to plan for the future about things being made up. By assuming a priori they are made up. Imho a total failure of skepticism (a consistent skepticism would question all conclusions).
Do you know the future? I'm going to go with "no." Therefore, all you can do as well is plan for the future with the information available. Based on your opinion\worldview you make your best guess.
In this case you decide planning for the future is necessary so you take path (B).
You seem to imply that just because we have objective evidence for two different possibilities then the resulting conclusion must therefore be an opinion. Curiously I'm implying that you don't have objective evidence, and thus the conclusions reached are based on opinion.
You are right that there is objective evidence about how things appear when then are made up. You are right that there is objective evidence about how things appear when they are not made up. Not what I've said, but carry on ... Which you imply would be valid for all cases ... something you said above was invalid. And you are implying that you can predict that all future cases will look made up when they are made up and look factual when they are factual ... so now you can magically know the future eh? Or do you assume ... Let's take an example:
quote: Without a clear indication of the author's intent how would we apply your paradigm to decide one was a made up parody or and actual statement of a position?
Therefore, it is an objective conclusion that the next time this boy cries wolf, there will be no wolf. No it is an assumption based on your opinion, you have no way to know whether it is factual or made up ... no matter how many times you repeat the scenario, because there is always the possibility that it is actually factual at one time ... as we see in the parable. The villagers failed to protect the sheep because they made your assumption and thereby reached an invalid conclusion.
The observation has already been replicated. And in the last case in the parable it was proven to be a false conclusion. Why was a false conclusion reached? Was it because the boy lied some of the times, or was it false because it was based on a false premise -- the assumption that all cries were lies. Pretending that your opinion is objective is a sure path to fundamentally false conclusions imho. Edited by RAZD, : inv Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : ...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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I see, you are going earlier in the example and wondering if the observations are objective in the first place.
This makes more sense for your position. I was trying to make a simple scenario where we can assume the proper validation had been done for the objective observations already so that I could make a point about the next steps. I didn't know you were backed up even further. So we were talking about different things. I suggest we move onto my simpler (one observation) wolf example in the next post (Message 217), then we can find out if we're on the same page or not yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you agree that we have objective evidence that when the boy cries wolf there is no wolf? No, you have evidence that the expert hunter found no evidence at the time he looked. This is not evidence that there was no wolf when the boy made the cry. And even if boy may have cried wolf when there was no wolf, you don't have evidence that the next time will be the same. Let's also assume that the boy was well known to be honest and had never been known to lie before, that he repeated his claim under oath and with a lie-detector test that showed he strongly believed he had in fact seen a wolf (lie detectors measure belief rather than fact). Further let's assume that it rained hard before the expert hunter arrived on the scene, thus wiping out any tracks. And we also have evidence that wolves have been a problem in the past. What's your decision?
That's it, just once. Jumping to conclusions is not being skeptical.
These are my thoughts, feel free to say whether or not you agree or disagree with them:
(NOTE: I changed the list from bullets to numbers for reference) I am interested to know which parts you disagree with (if any), and why... at your leisure, of course. Curiously I have to wonder if you even realize how much your opinion\bias affects how you have structured this? Perhaps you should try answering for me and see if you can cypher what is wrong.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, you have evidence that the expert hunter found no evidence at the time he looked. This is not evidence that there was no wolf when the boy made the cry. Of course it is. It doesn't prove it with 100% certainty. But evidence isn't about certainty. It's about increasing the probability that something is true. No discovered dead prey animals, no tracks, no furs by someone who knows where to look to find these kinds of things - these things increase the probability of the proposition being true.
And even if boy may have cried wolf when there was no wolf, you don't have evidence that the next time will be the same. Yes you do. We have evidence that personalities and abilities are broadly consistent over time. That's why, for example, convicted rapists and murderers have a hard time getting elected to high office. There is an increased probability over others that they will commit serious offences in the future.
Let's also assume that the boy was well known to be honest and had never been known to lie before, that he repeated his claim under oath and with a lie-detector test that showed he strongly believed he had in fact seen a wolf (lie detectors measure belief rather than fact). Then that would be evidence against the proposition that there will be future false alarms.
Further let's assume that it rained hard before the expert hunter arrived on the scene, thus wiping out any tracks. And we also have evidence that wolves have been a problem in the past. What's your decision? Well because I believe that personalities are consistent over time - I would believe the boy genuinely thought he saw a wolf. However, if the boy is regular in calling an alarm - and sheep almost always don't get attacked after an alarm is raised - we have reason to doubt the boy's alarms. Just as you would have reason to doubt your car would start in the morning if it had failed to do so on 10 previous mornings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024