Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 211 of 271 (716922)
01-22-2014 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by New Cat's Eye
01-21-2014 2:47 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-21-2014 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2014 3:39 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 271 (716925)
01-22-2014 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by RAZD
01-22-2014 3:25 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2014 3:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 213 of 271 (716928)
01-22-2014 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Stile
01-21-2014 4:33 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
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 wolves
The 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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Stile, posted 01-21-2014 4:33 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Stile, posted 01-23-2014 10:44 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 217 by Stile, posted 01-23-2014 11:22 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 214 of 271 (716945)
01-22-2014 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Straggler
01-21-2014 3:37 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2014 3:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Straggler, posted 01-23-2014 3:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 215 of 271 (716980)
01-22-2014 9:59 PM


Hmmmmm
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: 12-02-2004


Message 216 of 271 (717017)
01-23-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by RAZD
01-22-2014 3:51 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2014 3:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 2:06 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 217 of 271 (717021)
01-23-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by RAZD
01-22-2014 3:51 PM


Change of Pace
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:
The boy cries wolf... the village expert wolf-hunters checked and concluded that there was no wolf.
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:
The boy cries wolf again...
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:
  • There is not enough information to make a confident decision about whether or not a wolf is there.
  • The very small amount of objective data we have (just one occurance, above) suggests that there is no wolf.
  • Therefore, if we conclude that there is no wolf, there is a very good chance we're wrong.
  • However, if we do conclude that there is no wolf, even based on just the one objective observation... such a conclusion would be objectively based on evidence... just not very likely to be correct.
  • If we conclude that there is a wolf, this would be based on subjective opinion that goes against the evidence. It would be extremely justified because there is only 1 previous observation... but it would still go against the evidence.
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!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2014 3:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by ringo, posted 01-23-2014 11:36 AM Stile has replied
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 2:41 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 218 of 271 (717022)
01-23-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Stile
01-23-2014 11:22 AM


Re: Change of Pace
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Stile, posted 01-23-2014 11:22 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Stile, posted 01-23-2014 12:06 PM ringo has replied
 Message 220 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 1:29 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 219 of 271 (717024)
01-23-2014 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by ringo
01-23-2014 11:36 AM


Re: Change of Pace
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by ringo, posted 01-23-2014 11:36 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 01-24-2014 10:41 AM Stile has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 220 of 271 (717036)
01-23-2014 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by ringo
01-23-2014 11:36 AM


mad genius
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by ringo, posted 01-23-2014 11:36 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2014 10:33 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 01-24-2014 10:45 AM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 221 of 271 (717039)
01-23-2014 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Stile
01-23-2014 10:44 AM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
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 opinion
Assuming 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.
question
                    |
        is there sufficient valid
     information available to decide
       |                        |
      yes                       no
       |                        |
   decide based           is a decision
   on empirical         (1) necessary or
  valid evidence        (2) not necessary?
    =logical               /            \
   conclusion            (1)            (2) ... but ... ?
      (A)                /               |              |
                      decide          decision        make a
                     based on       not required     decision
                    inadequate       inadequate       anyway
                     evidence         evidence       based on
                     = guess           = wait       = opinion ?
                       (B)               (C)           (D)
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:
Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism
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, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Stile, posted 01-23-2014 10:44 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Stile, posted 01-23-2014 2:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 222 of 271 (717043)
01-23-2014 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by RAZD
01-23-2014 2:06 PM


To the Change of Pace message, then
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 2:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 223 of 271 (717044)
01-23-2014 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Stile
01-23-2014 11:22 AM


Re: Change of Pace
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:
  1. There is not enough information to make a confident decision about whether or not a wolf is there.
  2. The very small amount of objective data we have (just one occurance, above) suggests that there is no wolf.
  3. Therefore, if we conclude that there is no wolf, there is a very good chance we're wrong.
  4. However, if we do conclude that there is no wolf, even based on just the one objective observation... such a conclusion would be objectively based on evidence... just not very likely to be correct.
  5. If we conclude that there is a wolf, this would be based on subjective opinion that goes against the evidence. It would be extremely justified because there is only 1 previous observation... but it would still go against the evidence.
(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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Stile, posted 01-23-2014 11:22 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 3:12 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 239 by Stile, posted 01-24-2014 10:19 AM RAZD has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 224 of 271 (717047)
01-23-2014 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by RAZD
01-23-2014 2:41 PM


Re: Change of Pace
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 2:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 4:49 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 225 of 271 (717048)
01-23-2014 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
01-22-2014 5:41 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2014 5:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 4:39 PM Straggler 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