Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Have at it. In the mean time please stop with the snide attacks that do not add anything to the contents of this thread.Enjoy.ps {abe} For the record, I would not be arguing the Fideism position, as that is not my position {/abe}Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

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) • • •

Worldview - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung (De-Weltanschauung.ogg [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] (helpinfo)) Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is the German word for "view" or "outlook." It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as the translated form world outlook or world view.
...
A worldview describes a consistent (to a varying degree) and integral sense of existence and provides a framework for generating, sustaining, and applying knowledge.
...
The 'construction of integrating worldviews' begins from fragments of worldviews offered to us by the different scientific disciplines and the various systems of knowledge [5]. It is contributed to by different perspectives that exist in the world's different cultures.
...
The term denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen as an organic unity, about the world as the medium and exercise of human existence. Weltanschauung serves as a framework for generating various dimensions of human perception and experience like knowledge, politics, economics, religion, culture, science, and ethics.
...
Some forms of Philosophical naturalism and materialism reject the validity of entities inaccessible to natural science. They view the scientific method as the most reliable model for building an understanding of the world.
...
A worldview can be considered as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for[15]. However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically, and if two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them[16]

---

Bold added for emPHAsis (although I could have bolded the whole quote).You will note that all of this is consistent with what I have argued."There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."Hamlet to Horatio in Act I, Scene V when Horatio complains about the ghost.It is what you have, whether you think so or not.Enjoy.ps{abe} Your worldview includes scientific knowledge, it is not something made up or added on arbitrarily to dodge an argument, it is part of your reality.
{/abe}Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : ps

---

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) • • •

So claim victory and leave then.Meanwhile I will continue to argue that the IPU is one of many, but not a necessarily representative, example of things where we don't have evidence pro or con, and that the discussion on alien life has shown that there is a spectrum of beliefs in regards to things we don't have (conclusive, convincing, etc) evidence pro or con, and that in fact the IPU falls into a subcategory of self contradictory concepts and doesn't really compare to other concepts.And for the record, you talk about having sufficient convincing evidence to believe or not believe something. What you consider sufficient or convincing is subjective, so other people will make different subjective conclusions about what is sufficient and convincing arguments. If what I subjectively consider to be sufficient and convincing arguments differs from what you subjectively consider to be sufficient and convincing arguments, then your position is also special pleading, as the only difference is the conclusion. And neither does this refute the position that using the IPU involves a logical fallacy or two, as has been demonstrated by the variety of responses concerning alien life - responses that all -- according to you -- amount to special pleading because they involve the same class of concepts as the IPU. Seeing as I am not proposing fideism, have at it. Go start a thread for theism bashing, it appears that many posters would prefer that to dealing with the topic.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) • • •

But what you are saying is that the believability is related to how much we think we know about the question, when we think we know a lot, we have a high confidence in our conclusion, and when we think we know little we have a low confidence in our conclusion, no matter what that conclusion is.You think you have a lot of evidence in one case, and that you don't have a lot of evidence in another. Perhaps if you read what I write, rather than what you think I write you wouldn't get all angry about it. Except that I have not said that. What you are engaged in is making extrapolations from existing evidence to reach conclusions that you think are logical. The fact remains that this is a subjective conclusion and not based on actual evidence of actual alien life on actual other planets.The fact is that Mark24 uses the same evidence and makes an equally logical extrapolation from the existing evidence and reaches an entirely different conclusion.The reason is because of different perceptions of what is a logical extrapolation from the known evidence, and that different perception is not based on facts or scientific theory, it is based on assumptions found in your world view:

quote:

---

... it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.

---

Seeing as that is not my position it is irrelevant. If you don't understand that there is an interaction between what you perceive as evidence and your world view, then you have something to learn.The plain fact, is that many people reach many different conclusions regarding the feasibility of alien life on other planets, and this is evidence of belief without sufficient convincing objective evidence, so people are making subjective conclusions.Now, does the IPU argument apply to such beliefs in the existence of alien life?Or does the fact that many people consider belief in the existence of alien life, and that they consider it rational, demonstrate that the IPU argument is a false straw man?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) • • •

shalamabobbi responds to me:

quote:

---

The IPU is an actual religion and I'd thank everybody not to take the name of my God in vain.

---

What makes you think I don't have a personal connection to the IPU (BBHH)?

quote:

---

On a slightly more serious note, the problem with the IPU argument is that it is a thinly veiled ad hominum attack.

---

Why? I certainly admit that the grand hoopla that has sprung up around the IPU (BBHH) has ulterior motives, but the entire point behind it is very serious. To dismiss it as "ad hominem" justifies the entire reason for her existence: To demonstrate that there are people who are incapable of analyzing their theology dispassionately.In short, to claim the IPU is ad hominem is to engage in the logical error of special pleading: We're supposed to take this set of fantastical claims seriously but these others are to be sneered at.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

It is not irrelevant because it goes to the very heart of what you are calling an "Absence of evidence".Thankyou for finally (sort of half heartedly) admitting that not all unevidenced claims are equally probable.Of course now that they you have finally acknowledged (sort of half heartedly) that all unevidenced claims are not equally probable your "All world views are equal" hypothesis comes tumbling down. No. It is not a straw man. Your "world view" hypothesis only applies if all world views are equal. Your "world view" hypothesis only applies if you reject the scientific method.My whole argument in two threads now has been based on establishing the relative likelihood of directly unevidenced claims.Extraterrestrials, the Hggs Boson, dark matter are all directly unevidenced. As is the IPU. And as are any other supernatural undetectable deities. In that sense they all share a common factor. This much of your argument is true. The rest however is not.SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES
The whole scientific method, deriving hypotheses from the logical extrapolation of known and tested facts and then testing these hypotheses relies on the fact that not all unevidenced claims are equally likely to be true.General relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, the existence of the CMB - These were all directly unevidenced claims at one point in time. The fact that they have been since tested and verified as being true is not because the world view from which they were derived just happens to result in some lucky guesses.The world view that resulted in these discoveries is the reasoned, systematic approach to knowledge that we call science. A reasoned, rational, systematic progression of knowledge that builds on objectively tested evidence to discover new evidence by means of establishing new hypotheses regarding as yet directly unevidenced phenomenon which logic suggests are highly likely. In short a method of prediction and verification.This same reasoned, rational and scientific methodology is what is being used to make the claims that dark matter, the Higgs boson and extraterrestrial life are probable. These are scientific hypotheses the likelihood of which we can estimate based on the strength of the knowledge from which they were derived.Dark matter, the Higgs boson and extraterrestrial life possibly may not exist. Like any hypothesis they could be wrong. But the fact that they are considered likely is not just the result of A world view. Their potential existence and the likelihood of that actual existence is derived from THE world view (if you insist on calling it that) that we call 'science'.If you reject this "world view" as being no more or less reliable than any other world view then you reject the scientific method as the best means available for discovery and verification. That's fine. As long as you realise that this is what you are doing.THE IPU AND OTHER ENTITIES
The IPU, God, gods and deities are not tentative conclusions derived from rational reason and the systematic analysis of tested knowledge. They are not scientific conclusions or even hypotheses.They are all baseless assertions derived from faith or the desire to demonstrate the inherent irrationality of faith.CONCLUSION
Not all unevidenced claims are equally probable. Some have the weight of the scientific method behind them and some do not.The IPU and the various deities/gods under consideration do not.
Extraterrestrials, the Higgs boson and dark matter do.That is why lumping them all together as the product of equally valid world views is effectively the rejection of the scientific method.That is why placing the IPU in the same category as gods and deities whilst separating phenomenon deemed scientifically probable as superior is NOT a strawman argument.EnjoyEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

B is an example of A
C is an absurd example of A
D is a believable example of A

---

But all A are absurd, therefore D does not exist.

quote:

---

Yes, he redefined A (from unknown to absurd, unbelievable) to suit his argument, thus resulting in an a priori conclusion that the B argument was absurd or unbelievable first in order to be classed as A.

---

Incorrect. The point behind examples such as the IPU is to demonstrate that all A are absurd. If B is absurd and C shares all the traits of B, then C is necessarily absurd, too. To claim otherwise is to engage in the logical error of special pleading. Somehow one set of fantastical claims is to be taken seriously while the other is derided as "ad hominem" despite being identical to the "serious" claims.You don't get to have it both ways.And by the way, I wasn't the one that came up with the term "absurd" or did any sort of "redefinition." That term is yours, RAZD. You used it in your opening post, Message 1: If you didn't mean to call the IPU (BBHH) "absurd," then why did you do so right off the bat?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

it seems the only argument people are making is to redefine A (your "C") to being absurd or unbelievable or contradictory first.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?From your own post, the very first post of the entire thread, Message 1: Who is this phantom person "redefining" anything? Who is this other person who brought up the term "absurd"? This is all your doing, RAZD. We're just following your lead. You're the one saying that the IPU (BBHH) is "absurd." We're just pointing out that she was designed specifically to match the traits of those deities that are considered "serious." Therefore, if the IPU (BBHH) is "absurd," how can it's equal be anything but "absurd" without invoking the logical error of special pleading?That's the entire point.

quote:

---

I've also change IPU to immaterial pink unicorn) for Taz.

---

I think you've completely missed Taz's point.Hint: Does the word "schism" mean anything to you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hi Rrhain,
Rahvin in post #62 did an excellent job of explaining the purpose of the IPU.I was first exposed to it on another board where I think it was improperly used in less intelligent debate and assumed it was pulled out of someone's arse and just happened to catch on. The point of 'w/o evidentiary support' was not a part of my exposure to this argument previously. As such it serves the purpose as you state. In my first exposure it was used against positions that were claimed upon some evidence. While that evidence might be debated the use as assumed in comparing unevidenced claims did not properly apply and the intent of revealing special pleading was not brought up.I am not sure where the argument that originated this thread began, but I have to agree with the following observation made by RAZD: As I understand the IPU now, it should only be applicable where lack of evidentiary support is admitted and is uncontested. Then special pleading is accurately assessed. But in a situation where some degree of evidence is claimed I would conclude the IPU as being improperly applied by definition, and the proper course of debate to be against the claimed evidence instead.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

B is an example of A
C is an example of A
C is wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc.
A is the class of things that are wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc.
and B is wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc.

---

Incorrect. Instead:B is constructed to be equivalent to A.
B is considered "absurd."
Because B necessarily copies A, then A is also "absurd."
With no example of A that is not equivalent to B, all A are thus "absurd."Anything else is special pleading. You need to explain why your example is different from the one that was deliberately designed to mimic it and yet is considered "absurd."

quote:

---

Thus it seems to me that we should be able to discuss this without involving religion/s.

​

We've seen a range of responses on the issue of alien life in the universe

---

Do you truly not understand the difference between god and life with respect to whether or not there is evidence of such? As I mentioned before: The existence of life guarantees that it is possible for life to exist. Thus, since it happened once, it is conceivable that it could happen again. Is there anybody who seriously doubts that life exists? Do you truly not understand how that puts the question of life elsewhere into a different class from the question of the existence of god?

quote:

---

Which also includes the issue of alien life in the universe.

---

Incorrect. There is evidence of life in the universe. Do you not see how that is different from the claims of evidence of god?

quote:

---

B is an example of A
C is an example of A
B is like C

​

Belief in alien life in the universe is like belief in the IPU/s

---

Incorrect. B is not an example of A.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

---

OK, you do realize that there is a problem with this picture, yes? One's education and experiences, philosophies and deductions, beliefs and opinions, are not necessarily part of reality. Even our "valid theories" might be without foundation. That's the entire point behind scientific inquiry: Everything we think we know about everything just might be wrong.Now, please answer the direct question that was put to you:Do you or do you not think that the number of planets in the universe has an effect on the probability of life existing somewhere else in the universe?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

shalamabobbi responds to me:

quote:

---

But in a situation where some degree of evidence is claimed I would conclude the IPU as being improperly applied by definition, and the proper course of debate to be against the claimed evidence instead.

---

But the IPU (BBHH) was specifically created to match the claims of those who proclaim some other deity. Therefore, if the IPU (BBHH) is to be rejected as "absurd" (RAZD's word), then why does the other deity get to be taken seriously?Answer: Special pleading.In direct contrast to RAZD's claim of special pleading, nobody claims that life doesn't exist. Therefore, there is some evidence to support the possibility that life, which happened once, just might have happened twice.Have you not noticed that there is no universal agreement regarding the existence of god? Have you not noticed that the people who do claim there is a god are incapable of agreeing on which one exists? RAZD's attempt to claim "subjectivity" fails on its face.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hopefully not forgetting the critical difference between them being that the IPU is inherently unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Incidentally, why do you think the IPU is not necessarily representative? What would be a representative example of an unfalsifiable and unverifiable entity? I would have thought there were an infinite number of such things (proof: An IPU with 1 leg, an IPU with 2 legs...an IPU with n legs) - how can one be any more representative of such things than any other?Indeed - the lack of such discriminatory criteria and the need to use faith to accept one over the other, is precisely the point being raised. Obviously what I consider sufficient or convincing is subjective - the clue is in the personal pronoun. The interesting thing is the why I find it convincing. To quote the wiki article on Special Pleading: "In philosophy, it is assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading is a subversion of this assumption.".I provide what I consider a relevant basis for the distinction. The faith argument, so the IPU argument attempts to demonstrate, subverts this process of providing a relevant basis. You might disagree with the basis for my distinctions (my criteria, my methodology etc), but by having such bases, I am not special pleading. If we were to explore my epistemological foundations in more depth we would no doubt find the occasional problems and unfounded positions; I would be very surprised to learn that there was no special pleading at all. After all, I have already said that special pleading seems to haunt the human condition.Of course, doing so here, as you so explicitly laid out in your OP, is not on topic. I said earlier that there was inevitably going to be debate when trying to decide whether a verifiable entity has enough (or any qualifying) verifying information to conclude its existence. I said that various arguments and criteria and methodology might be employed to argue the case one way or another. The point of the IPU argument is to show that no such criteria or methodology seems forthcoming for placing the IPU into the 'Does not exist' category, and god or leszi or angels or whatever into 'Does exist' category. Now - some people believe there are some criteria (the prevalence of belief in creator deities, the argument from design etc etc), having such criteria would suggest not faith, but reason was employed (or perhaps both)...and thus the IPU argument is no longer being used as an argument against faith, and thus it is no longer on topic for this thread."I believe that leszi exist and the creator god doesn't because I have faith that is the case."
"I believe that a creator god exists and leszi do not because I have faith that is the case."versus"Alien life rests on the premise that life coming into existence is not incredibally rare. Since we don't know how likely or unlikely this is, we should reserve judgement until we can get more information: sometimes unique events do happen and life might be one of them.""We know life exists here, and it arrived pretty early in earth's history. It seems no sooner had the earth finished cooling off and solidifying etc when life appeared. This is in itself evidence that life might be ubiquitous. Further - the astonishing number of planets that must exist is further evidence. I think we can tentatively conclude that extra terrestrial life probably exists."You see how the alien life case is built upon an argument, with appeals to evidence? Whether one accepts one or another is of course dependent upon your epistemological position, as well as the exact details of what evidence has been presented to you and what arguments you have been exposed to, but choosing one position over the other is not necessarily special pleading. Making a judgement call based upon arguments calling upon different criteria and epistemology is not special pleading. Making a judgement call based upon no such criteria (or arbitrary or irrelevant or whatever) is.So no, the alien life example has not demosntrated a logical fallacy in the IPU argument. Now: if you want to, you can try and use the IPU argument to argue that those that accept alien life existing are also special pleading if you want (and I think you will automatically fail given the falsifiable and verifiable nature of alien life as well as the argument by induction which cannot be used for the IPU either): but that doesn't mean the IPU example is fallacious - it just means it applies to more things than people might have thought. Oh, sorry, I thought your position was that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief. I know that Deists generally suggest that they arrived at their belief through reason, but I rather got the impression that you and Percy both do not share this view. I have no desire for 'theism bashing' any more than I have for shooting fish in a barrel (deliberately self-contradictory statement placed here for comic effect). I simply thought you might like to have a philosophical argument about whether evidence/reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the justification of certain, generally religious, beliefs given its off topic status in this thread.

Thanks Rrhain. But the IPU is C, not A, the fact that it is absurd is due to it being a self-contradictory, designed argument, designed to ridicule beliefs.You were the first to refer to A as being absurd. Thus you are arguing that A is absurd because C is absurd. Then don't redefine A. Message 85
But claiming that A is necessarily "absurd" from the start is begging the question.A is the class of things where we don't have evidence pro or con.No evidence for
No evidence againstThere are many examples of A, including the concept of alien life in the universe.Some people have added "unfalsifiable" to the concept category in an attempt to make the IPU more representative of the class (again redefining A to suit your argument)The argument that alien life is different because it may be possible to determine that it is valid, while remaining unfalsifiable until then, is just special pleading on what you consider possible future evidence. This is the subtext to what you consider evidence, and the subtext to what you consider possible support for a claim that is a member of class A. Message 86
So your education and experiences, philosophies and deductions, beliefs and opinions, are not part of reality the reality that is Rrhain? It should be obvious that I've answered this several times. The perception of the number of planets is part of the information you process when deciding on the likelihood of life on another planet, as is your knowledge and the evidence of life on earth.However, in spite of considering that the number of possible planets may well be unknown and unknowable, even approaching infinity, we have a range of people with different responses to the question from highly unlikely to almost a foregone conclusion, so the conclusion is that the resulting opinion is more a function of individual world views, not on the concrete objective reality of planets. Thus the worldview trumps the issue of how many planets exist in forming an opinion.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) • • •

No you have not. Where have you answered this question?
You keep avoiding explicitly answering this question.If you agree that the probability of life on other planets increases as the number of planets increases then you also necessarily agree that we can make a logical and objective assessment regarding the relative likelihood of life existing on other planets based on this objective information. Despite having no direct evidence.An objective assessment of likelihood is possible because no claim is made in a complete vacuuum of evidence. This is what I have been saying and you have been denying for two threads now. Some methods of determining the number of planets in the universe are inherently more reliable than others. Those conclusions regarding the number of planets in the universe that are based on the scientific method are the most reliable and tested conclusions that we have available. They are superior to other methods from which a "perception of the number of planets" might be derived. There will always be different conclusions whether there is evidence or not. That is just human nature. It has little to do with evidence. The existence of YECs is testament to that fact.The only question relevant here is to ask which conclusions are the most objective, the most reliable and the most grounded in empirical evidence? The answer is those derived by means of the scientific method. Only if you treat all "world views" as equally valid and reliable. Are scientific conclusions and hypotheses superior to those that are not derived from objective evidence?Dark matter, the Higgs boson and the existence of extraterrestrial life are scientific hypotheses derived from our objective and tested scientific knowledge. Their relative likelihood can be assessed based on the degree of certainty we have in the evidence from which these hypotheses are founded.God, gods, the IPU, deities, Wagwah, etc. are baseless assertions derived from faith or the desire to demonstrate the inherent irrationality of faith.That is why the two sets are not equivalent. A = The set that includes all directly unevidenced phenomenon
B = The set that includes those phenomenon which are unverified scientific predictions but which nevertheless have a basis for probability derived from tested empirical evidence.
C = The set that includes those phenomenon with no basis in objective evidence whatsoever.B and C are both subsets of A but the contents of B and C are indisputably and inherently different.Extraterrestrial life, Higgs Boson, Dark Matter - These are all currently members of set B.God, gods, deities, Wagwah, face sucking jellyfish, the IPU etc. etc. - These are all indisputably members of set C.That is the differenceThat is why the IPU etc. are valid comparisons to equally unevidenced claims for gods and deities whilst they are not valid comparisons to logically deduced and evidentially supported scientific possibilities.That is why, unless you are disputing the validity of the scientific method, your arguments are flawed.That is why your denial of our ability to objectively assess the relative likelihood of unevidenced claims is so wrong.Exactly as I have been saying for two threads..........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.