Pseudoskepticism and logic

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Looks that way, unless someone wants to actually discuss the topic.

---

Do you have a topic? So far, all you've done is vaguely insult somebody, then directly insult the very person you claimed you wouldn't be naming. This was followed by attempts to be so general that no actual statement was made.What is it you want to discuss?Be specific.If it's just that you want people to claim that the statement, "X does not exist," requires actual justification and evidence, then I doubt you'll have many takers because that is pretty much universally accepted and thus there is nothing to debate. Everybody agrees.If it isn't that, then what is it? Just what are you trying to say?Be specific.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have a topic?
If it isn't that, then what is it? Just what are you trying to say?

---

​

see Message 1

---

See Message 10If we're just going to repeat the same call-and-response, then we aren't going to get anywhere. What part of "attempts to be so general that no actual statement was made" are you having trouble with?What is it you want to discuss?Be specific.

quote:

---

Curiously, I am surprised to see the appeal to popularity from you, Rrhain.

---

Huh? What "appeal to authority"? I didn't say anybody was right. I simply said everybody agreed. You do understand the difference, yes? You seem to be trying to pick a fight, essentially saying that there are some people who want to be able to deny other people's points without providing justification for said denial.I'm simply pointing out that you'll have a hard time getting any takers for such a discussion. Everybody agrees that negative claims are claims nonetheless and thus require justification.Do you have evidence to the contrary? It would help if you could be specific. Who thinks negative claims need no justification?

quote:

---

You should also know that claiming that buckets of evidence exists is not the same as showing what that evidence is: that is the kind of argument one gets from creationists.

---

Indeed.Do you have any evidence that anybody here disagrees with the concept of having to provide justification for negative claims?So far, all you've done is insult Straggler for something he doesn't advocate.What is it you want to discuss?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

The question is why do you need to hold the negative position without having any objective evidence for it?

---

Because all the objective evidence indicates it isn't there. When I turn my oven on, I have objective evidence that it is the resistance coils that are heating it up (electric oven), not an invisible salamander that cannot be detected in any way.But according to you, because I don't have any "objective evidence" to deny the existence of the undetectable salamander (after all, I've not exactly done any experiments regarding it), I don't have any justification to claim it isn't there. It would appear that your beef is with Occam's Razor: Given a sufficient description, you want to be able to claim that adding undetectable chocolate sprinkles is a rational thing to do.Or, it seems that you're saying that once we find an answer, we need to keep going in order to disprove all the other ones...that it isn't sufficient to show that two and two make four: We must move on to show that they don't make five or three or any other non-four number.

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

So how does god differ from the salamander?This is where your analysis of Tyson fails. He is keeping an open mind about alien life because there is positive evidence of life existing in the universe and we know that space is traversible. Ergo, it is conceivable that life from beyond earth has come here.Do you truly not see the difference between aliens and god?

quote:

---

But do you have a sufficient description of evidence?

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.

quote:

---

Do you have evidence comparable to the electrical current heating up a wire?

---

Yes. That's why I'm asking why you want to add chocolate sprinkles.We're back to the question nobody ever answers! Will you be the first one?Is god required for everything or is there anything that happens on its own?

quote:

---

You should also know that Occam's Razor does not always work

---

In an absolute sense, yes. But we're talking about rationality, not perfection. If you have a model that appears to be accurate, why insist upon invisible chocolate sprinkles? We didn't discard Newtonian kinematics until we had observations that indicated it was wrong.

quote:

---

sometimes the more complicated explanation of the evidence is closer to reality.

---

But why? That is a serious question. I really want to hear your explanation of this. Remember the operative word in the razor: "Unnecessarily." How might that apply?

quote:

---

Take predictions of weather, computer models started out rather simplistic, but keep getting increasingly complicated because the simple models don't explain all the evidence.

---

Keep going. Where is the missing evidence that requires the chocolate sprinkles?

quote:

---

No, the simple premise is that if you think that two plus two equals four that you should be able to provide evidence for it, and equally important, that if you think that two plus two does NOT equal four that you should be able to provide evidence for it.

---

And that's precisely what has been done.Why do you keep insisting on chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that they are required? The model seems to fit, so why are you still dissatisfied?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So how does god differ from the salamander?

---

​

Does it need to?

---

Since you agreed that it is not rational to think that there is an invisible, undetectable salamander heating my oven, are you saying that it is also irrational to think that god exists?

quote:

---

I see no reason NOT to be open minded about god/s - do you?

---

You mean there are common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?Again, we know that life exists in the universe. We also know that space is traversible. Therefore, there is positive evidence that there may have been life that has traversed space.

quote:

---

Do you have empirical evidence to justify NOT being openminded?

---

Yes. The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?

quote:

---

What I want to see is your empirical objective evidence for the non-existence of god/s -- will you be the first on this thread to provide it?

---

Asked and answered: The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?Now that I've answered yours, it would be nice if you answered mine:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything.There really is a point to that question and it is precisely on topic. It has to do with the concept of "evidence." You have gone on and on about the need for evidence, but you ignore all the evidence that is surrounding you.To skip to the end: Why is this time different?

quote:

---

This thread is not about me justifying my position, it is about people with a negative hypothesis supplying evidence for that hypothesis.

---

(*chuckle*)You do realize that you just proved your own point to be a load of crap, yes? You're making a positive claim. Therefore, you must provide justification for it.Ah, but your rules don't apply to you, I guess.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something more?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

LindaLou responds to Straggler:

quote:

---

quote:

---

On the basis of the objective evidence alone is "probably human invention" atheism a justifiable rational conclusion? If not whay not. Be specific.

---

​

No, for the reasons given in my recent post to RAZD here.

---

So you claim there is no objective evidence that people make stuff up?That is the criteria upon which you were asked to make your conclusion: "On the basis of the objective evidence alone."Don't you think that you should include the fact that people make up stuff all the time? That many of the various beings that have been put forward as "god" were made up?What makes this one any different?And if you can't even define what "god" is, then the problem is not with the atheists who claim your undefined entity doesn't exist. It's you for insisting that something that cannot be defined has a possibility of existing. If you don't even know what it is, how could ever hope to know it should you see it? If the position is, as RAZD has said, to "wait for more evidence," what possible evidence could there ever be since you don't even know what it is to look for or how one might go about finding out?There's a reason that the null hypothesis (what you are trying to show isn't true) is the default position. The default position is always that the thing that is claimed to exist actually doesn't.This is even more important when all you have is a label and nothing to actually attach it to. Defining "god" as a "force" is just a change of letters, not an actual definition because it doesn't explain anything.

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

The need to support a negative hypothesis is independent of any positive hypothesis.

---

But the null hypothesis (the thing you are talking about existing) does not need justification. It is the default position.Therefore, it is always the burden of those claiming god to provide justification, not for the ones presenting that this "god" thing doesn't.This is even more important when this word "god" remains undefined such that there can never be evidence.The model works. Why do you need chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidnece of something missing?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

What is needed for the hypothesis that all human concepts of god are made up is evidence that indeed all the concepts are made up.

---

Exactly backwards. What is needed is evidence that any concept of any kind isn't simply made up.The null hypothesis is always assumed to be true unless there is evidence to deny it. If you're going to claim something exists, then you're the one that needs to show it. It is not up to the one denying it to demonstrate such.The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence of something missing?If you can't even define what it is that is missing, how do you know that there might be something missing in the first place?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

But why not non-belief for the negative hypothesis? Why is this so difficult to answer?

---

It isn't difficult. It's very easy. You just don't like it.The null hypothesis is always considered true until shown otherwise.

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since you agreed that it is not rational to think that there is an invisible, undetectable salamander heating my oven, are you saying that it is also irrational to think that god exists?

---

​

So you are going to start making up falsehoods about my position/s instead of dealing with the issue. How familiar.

---

Is there a point in there? That was your entire response. Clearly, you think I have said something wrong. But it would be helpful if you could be specific and point out what it was.Are you saying you disagree that it is not rational to think that there is an invisible, undetectable salamander heating my oven?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You mean there are common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?

​

Again, we know that life exists in the universe. We also know that space is traversible. Therefore, there is positive evidence that there may have been life that has traversed space.

---

​

Which is not a reason to NOT to be open minded about god/s. Thanks.

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.Better yet, answer the question. Let's try again, shall we?You mean there are common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?The reason we can/should be open-minded regarding visitors from other planets is because such an event requires life and the ability to traverse space. We know that life exists at least somewhere in the universe (here) and we know that space can be traversed (because we've done it). Therefore, it is conceivable that some life somewhere not from here managed to traverse space and come here.Where is your evidence of a god-like object that is akin to our evidence of life existing in the universe? Where is your evidence of a god-like object that is akin to our evidence of space being traversible?Are there common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes. The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?

---

​

What model?

---

The one that you're claiming requires chocolate sprinkles.If you're not going to be forthright regarding what you're talking about, why should you expect anybody else to be?

quote:

---

That vanilla is the best flavor?

---

Who said anything about "best"? The word I used was "works." The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?

quote:

---

Doesn't that claim require supporting evidence?

---

You mean the model doesn't work? How? That would be a reason to require chocolate sprinkles. What is this evidence you have that there is need for something extra?

quote:

---

Fascinatingly repetition of the same assertion 50 times does not make it true.

---

All you have to do is answer the question and it will stop being repeated. The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now that I've answered yours, it would be nice if you answered mine:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything.

---

​

Asked and answered. The model works.

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.Indeed, the model works, but is it working because god is forcing it or is it working because at least one thing is happening on its own?

quote:

---

If we ASSUME that "the model works"

---

Hold it right there. We don't assume anything. On the contrary, we CONCLUDE that the model works because we perform the experiments that provide the positive evidence that it does.If you're going to demand that there are chocolate sprinkles, you need to show why there is a need for them. Otherwise, there is no rational justification to deny the model which does not include them.

quote:

---

then you have made a claim that is not neutral to the issue of god/s but asserts a negative claim.

---

Incorrect. Instead, I have put forward the null hypothesis which is always considered true until you provide evidence that it isn't.

quote:

---

This claim, like any negative claim, bears a burden to provide evidence or logical proof.

---

Incorrect. The null hypothesis is always true until evidence shows otherwise.

quote:

---

If we ASSUME that "the model works"

---

Again, hold it right there. We don't assume anything. On the contrary, we CONCLUDE that the model works because we perform the experiments that provide the positive evidence that it does.If you're going to demand that there are chocolate sprinkles, you need to show why there is a need for them. Otherwise, there is no rational justification to deny the model which does not include them.Where is your evidence that something else is required?

quote:

---

Perhaps you need to add a few sprinkles of clarification to your post.

---

Indeed, I do.They're your answers to my questions. Until you answer them, I will keep asking them:You mean there are common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Duplicate post...sorry.Edited by Rrhain, : Duplicate post...sorry.

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

LindaLou responds to me:

quote:

---

Please prove to me that this stance is any less valid than "people make stuff up so all theistic beliefs are made up."

---

Since that isn't what I was trying to claim, you'll forgive me if I don't comply.Instead, my point is that since we know that people make stuff up, it is the burden of the one claiming that an object exists to show that it does, not the ones claiming that it does not.The null hypothesis is always true until shown otherwise.

quote:

---

Firstly, the topic of this thread is pseudoskepticism; that is, assuming that the negative (or null) hypothesis is correct without recognising an obligation to provide evidence for this assumption.

---

So basically, we're throwing all of logic out the window because somebody doesn't like the implications it has for his theology? The null hypothesis is always considered true until shown otherwise. That is simply the nature of the beast. That's why it's called "burden of proof." It is always on the one making the claim. Existence is a claim. Non-existence is the status quo.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Secondly, it would seem to me that we are all able to talk about something called spirituality, without getting into semantic misunderstandings. We may not agree on what that is but if we had no concept of it at all then we'd have difficulty using the word.

---

Clearly, we aren't able to and we do have difficulty. Isn't that indicative of something?

quote:

---

quote:

---

There's a reason that the null hypothesis (what you are trying to show isn't true) is the default position. The default position is always that the thing that is claimed to exist actually doesn't.

---

​

But this isn't how the scientific methods works, is it?

---

(*blink!*)That is preicsely how science works. The entire point is to find evidence for that which you are looking for because chances are you're wrong.

quote:

---

You don't design an experiment thinking, "I don't think this thing I'm (or you're) looking for actually exists."

---

Yes, you do. That's why you design the experiment and establish controls: To start excluding things that we know exist to see if there is something else going on and the nature of it. You have to establish that the chocolate sprinkles are required.

quote:

---

The only way to avoid confirmation bias is to keep an open mind -- that is, to be as agnostic as possible.

---

Incorrect. The only way to avoid confirmation bias is to be as negative as possible: That is, to demand that evidence be presented that shows the existence of something since the null hypothesis that it isn't there is true by default.

quote:

---

There are serious, well-qualified scientists out there doing research into the paranormal

---

And they have yet to establish even the existence of something unusual going on let alone a mechanism for how it might happen.

quote:

---

How is it any different to insist that the idea of a god is patently absurd without appropriate evidence to back up the claim?

---

Because the model works. Why do you insist on chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that more is required?

quote:

---

How are we to avoid situations like this ourselves, if we declare that the appropriate stance to take is "I won't believe it until you prove it to me?"

---

Because you check the model to see if it works. That's how you learn things. When you simply assume that disease is caused by demons without actually doing any investigation with controls to determine if they are there, you get people thinking that ghosts and spirits are all around us.

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

this thread has it defined in the exact opposite way you are using it.

---

That's because we're denying RAZD's definition. Skepticism is acceptance of the null hypothesis until shown otherwise.

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

Your post is moot for several logical reasons.

---

This is what happens when people who don't know logic try to look up words and pretend they understand them.

quote:

---

First of all the immaterial pink unicorn is KNOWN to be fabricated for the purpose of atheist-argument.

---

Irrelevant. The relevant properties of the IPU are identical to all other gods proffered. Therefore, if you're going to deny the IPU, then you must necessarily deny all the other gods for the same reason.

quote:

---

But this also shows that you have no knowledge about composition, and the fallacies of composition.

---

First evidence that you looked up the term, "fallacy of composition," but you didn't understand it. The fallacy of composition is essentially that the whole is not the same as the parts of which it is made and thus what might be true for one part might not be true for all.For example: A penny is a small amount of money. A thousand dollars is made up of pennies. Therefore, a thousand dollars is a small amount of money.What you need to show is where the composition is. Are you saying that god is made up of a bunch of IPUs? All the traits of god are completely fabricated? They were "KNOWN to be fabricated"?Now, indeed: Simply saying that because the pieces of the definition of "god" is made up indicates that the entire concept of "god" is made up is a logical fallacy of composition. However, if it can be shown that the collection of fabricated traits actually compounds the problem rather than having a different aggregate effect that cannot be achieved by any individual part, then we have shown that the collection is also a completely fabricated concept.For example, we have people who claim that evolution cannot produce an "increase in information." They insist that a gene sequence going from "a" to "aa" is not an "increase in information." They also insist that "a" to "b" is not an "increase in information." But, they claim that "a" to "ab" would be an "increase in information."Thus, a gene shift from "a" to "aa" to "ab" would be an "increase in information" through two individual steps that aren't. This is their "fallacy of composition" as they are failing to take into account aggregate effects.But on the flip side: No matter how many times I deal cards, I'm never going to come up with Yahtzee. All the cards in the world will not turn them into dice.If you are going to claim a fallacy of composition, then you're going to have to define what those parts are and how the collection of parts contains aggregate properties not contained by any individual part.

quote:

---

and also it is the fallacy of the undistributed middle term.

---

Second evidence that you looked it up but didn't understand it.The "fallacy of the undistributed middle" is a syllogistic error of the type:All A are X.
All B are X (or: B is an X)
Therefore, all A are B (or: B is an A)In a specific sense: All San Diegans are Californians. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Californian. Therefore, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a San Diegan.However, you haven't defined what the middle term is. You haven't even shown what the syllogistic argument is.

quote:

---

What this shallow view actually shows us is the immaturity of those that have never had a faith, because they can only conflate faith with shallow concepts known for their silliness.

---

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of atheists were once theists, yes? Many of the atheists here have gone into detail about their previous theology and the process by which they changed their minds. Therefore, your claim of "never had a faith" is shown to be false by simple inspection.And since you do know this, your claim of "never had a faith" is not only disingenuous at best, it is downright rude.

quote:

---

Have you nothing better than the same regurgitated ad nauseam argument

---

As soon as RAZD deigns to answer the questions put to him, they will stop being asked. So long as he avoids all such questions with the pathetic whine of "off-topic!" we will keep spinning this merry-go-round.

quote:

---

Do you really think someone as intelligent as RAZD will not see the many errors in such childish, sneering comments?

---

He keeps bringing up the same argument in new threads and keeps getting slapped down time and again.The cliche definition of "insane" is to continue to do the same failed thing while expecting to get a different result.But do you really think shoving your face in his ass and giving it the sloppiest kiss imaginable is an actual argument? That anybody is going to change his mind because you're showing how much of a sycophant you can be?Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

mike the wiz responds to Straggler:

quote:

---

"Evidenced possibility". Wow. Show us some stuff that show us this possibility.

---

You mean Zeus, Odin, and Amaterasu are all real and not made up?If these other gods are made up, why should anybody think that yours is any different?Where is your evidence of chocolate sprinkles?

---

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.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.