Pseudoskepticism and logic

Hi Phage,

quote:

---

But you *can* prove it to them with an experiment. That is how we figured those things out in the first place, and when the experiment yields the results you predicted it would be evidence you are correct.

---

I imagine that you could culture some bacteria without needing modern equipment, or that you could cure someone's bacterial infection with penicillin, or similar things. You might garner some interest. But I think you'd still have a difficult time persuading most people that your results are due to zillions of little creatures living in your body that are (without a microscope) invisible. My point of course was that you might be correct about something but not be able to prove it empirically, especially when people are of the opinion that it's a ridiculous idea in the first place; it's not an impossible scenario.

quote:

---

You seem to be equating "I don't believe you" with "I will ignore evidence", which is not the case at all.

---

No, I'm equating "I don't believe you even though there's no evidence one way or the other" with confirmation bias and pseudoskepticism, as outlined in the OP.

quote:

---

Claims with no evidence to support them should be held in the same regard as any other of the infinite unevidenced claims that can be made about reality.

---

If there is also no evidence to disprove them then what RAZD and I are arguing here is that the rational position is true skepticism, or agnosticism. Moving from a 50/50 position should be supported by some evidence one way or the other. I'm not completely decided, myself, on how far I would personally allow that to go before I decided that you needed to have some firm evidence. It does seem clear to me that a 1 or a 7 on the Dawkins scale needs evidence in support of such a certain claim.

quote:

---

I've always seen the label of pseudoskeptic applied to people who dismiss the possibility of the reality of paranormal phenomena, such as James Randi

---

quote:

---

He dismisses it because there is no evidence. That is a skeptic not a psuedoskeptic.

---

This is OT but that statement is just plain wrong (excuse my bluntness), as you would find if you looked into attempts some people have made to take him up on his gimmicky prize. You would also discover, with some research, that there is evidence for such phenomena. Avoiding making firm decisions while lacking evidence is the gist of this thread; though if the evidence is lacking because of ignorance, that problem is easily solved.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi Onfire, thanks for your interesting post.

quote:

---

What would be a good method (like that of science) for investigating said god/s?

---

The closest that science seems to come at the moment is quantum physics. The more we learn about the fabric of reality itself, the more we may be able to reconcile it with spirituality. Other than that, I would investigate promising anecdotal evidence, though this could of course be fraught with difficulties.

quote:

---

Would you agree, that if no method exists, then we should not consider the claim to be capable of being evidenced in reality?

---

No, because there may be ways of investigating that we have not yet discovered. I think the skeptical position would be that it could be possible to find evidence.

quote:

---

Yes, but can you point to any evidence for the development of these spiritual beliefs that is outside of the human mind?

---

Whether I personally can or not is beside the point. In this thread we're talking about assuming a negative hypothesis to be true when there is a lack of empirical evidence, rather than deciding "we don't know." If you decided that the answer to your question is, "No, and therefore I feel certain that god does not exist," you become obliged to prove that god is actually the product of the human mind. I don't believe we can be sure of this.

quote:

---

The same is true for assuming that god is real, but that the only thing that varies, or may be wrong, is the different concepts of god. That is a logical fallacy that takes place before the atheistic position.

---

But I don't assume god is real, and RAZD has also expressed significant tentativity about his beliefs. IMO when there is a lack of evidence then some degree of skepticism or agnosticism would be the rational position to take.

quote:

---

Can you reference ONE paranormal event that has ever been concluded to be the work of magic, ghosts, spirits, immaterial entities, god/s, etc.?

---

I know of various studies and trials that have obtained results that are statistically significant, but that is OT here. I don't believe that paranormal phenomena have to be dependent on the existence of a god, and I don't believe there's anything "magical" about them.

Hi again Straggler,

quote:

---

I ask again - On the basis of the objective evidence alone is a degree of "probably human invention" atheism justified?

---

You've been asking this question, or a variation, in a number of threads and it's been discussed pretty thoroughly in many permutations. Do you think that ignoring what everyone has said and repeating the question is going to hammer home some devastating rhetorical point? RAZD has already addressed this. I have been addressing it too. My simple answer to this simple point is that the more certainty you feel that god does not exist (a negative hypothesis), the more obliged you are to provide evidence for your position. If you can't, then your position is not a truly skeptical one (see "pseudoskepticism" in OP).

Hi RAZD,I wouldn't mind some moderation here too. It would be nice to have some help with keeping people on topic and not repeating the same things.

quote:

---

Too bad my last was hidden - it took me almost a whole day to assemble.

---

It was detailed, thorough, and utterly devastating. Maybe if the conversation swings back that way, as someone suggested, it will be put back in public view. Speaking for myself, I bookmark these things in my browser in order to use them for future debates if and when they happen.

Just an acknowledgement that evidence in favour of a mutually exclusive alternative exists and is valid would be a start. Actually not really. Well given that you and RAZD are so dissapointed by the "off-topic" responses you are getting how about you lead the way on this. Why don't you or RAZD take an uncontentious example that we are presumably all atheistic towards and then demonstrate to us how you would go about justifying your own negative hypothesis. With this in mind I put it to you that your toilet is full of invisible immaterial ethereal and entirely empirically undetectable toilet goblins. Are you a toilet goblin pseudoskeptic LindaLou?If you cannot lead by example and justify your negative hypothesis towards something we are all uncontentiously atheistic towards then I don't see how you or RAZD can legitimately require anybody else to do so with regard to anything else.Edited by AdminModulous, : fixed quote tags

Hi RAZD.Theism is negative, as it is an attempt to replace the obvious default (natural explanations for natural phenomena) with evidenceless supernatural propositions. You can't be negative about a nothing.What about real atheists?atheist - the implicit state of all humans as babies. Has no need for a negative hypothesis unless someone else makes a positive god hypothesis, defines "god", and presents real evidence for that god.Implicit atheists can only become explicit atheists in relation to described gods. Explicit atheists usually claim the existence of any particular god, once described, as being very (or extremely) unlikely. Such a position is easily statistically justifiable considering the enormous number of evidenceless "true" gods that are believed in, and the fact that most of these "true gods" are mutually exclusive.Also, any theistic claim specifying the number of gods believed in can be dismissed easily as "extremely unlikely" unless positive evidence is presented to support that specific number over all others. Thus, all monotheism is automatically unlikely. Indeed. The existence of supernatural beings of all classes cannot be disproved. The true skeptic would regard all evidenceless supernatural propositions as equally unlikely (gods would be no more likely than fairies or Santa's elves). Anyone who broke that rule and claimed skepticism could be described as a pseudo-skeptic.Zero evidence is zero evidence, and personal desire and/or cultural background shouldn't come into it. Either way on which goddesses? That person does not believe in any. That's also a description of an implicit atheist, which is why agnostics and atheists are often described together in a non-theist category. But the phrase "more evidence" doesn't belong here (more? in addition to what?). That person requires first a description of the proposed god in order to become an explicit atheist in relation to it, then real evidence for that god's existence in order to become a rational theist (the first one ever ).So, why am I claiming that the theistic positions are negative.Around us every day, we observe natural processes, not supernatural. For the existence of nature, we have overwhelming evidence. For the existence of supernatural beings, we have zero evidence.So, observation and experience tells as that natural explanations for any phenomena (including our universe) should be the default.Theism is a negative attack on that, and ultimately, the apparent product of the old "god of the gaps" mentality. Those who regard atheism as requiring supporting evidence are invariably from cultures heavily infected with theism, and show their cultural subjectivity with a weird bias for evidenceless propositions, apparently imaginary beings that they call deities. You are now in an ideal position to assess that. I'm sure you've been asked to present evidence for your god before, while considering it as a positive proposition.Now you can enjoy presenting evidence for any negative disagreement you have with the default proposition that "nature did it all".

quote:

---

Just an acknowledgement that evidence in favour of a mutually exclusive alternative exists and is valid would be a start.

---

Alternative to what? Are you still talking here about people making stuff up? No one denies that that happens, but the use of this as a blanket claim for why atheism is justified has been the topic of several posts here already.

quote:

---

Well given that you and RAZD are so dissapointed by the "off-topic" responses you are getting

---

It's curious that you put those words in quotation marks. Since this thread is about the need to justify negative claims, then requests for us to prove positive claims, or for me to talk about the paranormal, are obviously off topic.

quote:

---

Why don't you or RAZD take an uncontentious example that we are presumably all atheistic towards and then demonstrate to us how you would go about justifying your own negative hypothesis.

---

Young earth creationism is bunkum because there are mountains of empirical evidence that directly contradict it. That was easy, wasn't it?Now where is your empirical evidence that god doesn't exist.

quote:

---

With this in mind I put it to you that your toilet is full of invisible immaterial ethereal

---

and so on and so on.This has been discussed by RAZD and me as well. It may help you to revisit the following posts:in the "Immaterial Evidence" thread, by me: Message 51
in this thread, by RAZD:
Message 111 -- to you
Message 121
Message 155
Message 162
Message 175
Message 180Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : typos.

Carefull, Linda. Are you 50/50 on biblical omphalism? Are you 50/50 on last Thursdayism? Are you 50/50 on Deism? And 50/50 on Allah?How many 50%s are there? Being agnostic on the ultimate origins of the universe is fine, because agnosticism just means the recognition that we do not know. But don't mistake this for being 50/50 on any specific proposition, because many, many, many more than two "50/50" mutually exclusive propositions that cannot be disproved can be made.RAZD has learned this important point during his participation in this thread, I hope, although it's not sure yet.

Biblical omphalism is new to me: is that the notion that everything was created with the appearance of age, but the world and life on it are only a few thousand years old?This, plus Last Thursdayism and Deism, are unprovable and there's no empirical evidence for or against them. There's no evidence for or against us living in a matrix. Therefore the rational stance IMO is 50/50. The real truth here, though, is that none of this makes any difference to how I live my life and it seems rather unimportant. Even if the universe was only created last Thursday, I'm under the illusion that it wasn't and I just have to get on with things.I think there's more evidence that individual gods like Allah don't exist -- at least, as those particular avatars. Like RAZD, I willingly accept that notions of deities may contain kernels of truth.It may help this discussion if you also have a look at the posts I listed in my last post to Straggler because we're again repeating what's gone before.

Want to try being me? ....Seriously though, it makes me glad when I hear things from TRUE neutralists such as you and RAZD, and agnostics who are truly honest and fair, and unbiased. Good work guys.

Your post is moot for several logical reasons.First of all the immaterial pink unicorn is KNOWN to be fabricated for the purpose of atheist-argument. But this also shows that you have no knowledge about composition, and the fallacies of composition.The problem with the simpleton-argument of the IPU is that compositionally it is a completely moot position, and also it is the fallacy of the undistributed middle term.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.Logically, this does not mean that our beliefs are 1.Shallow, or 2. Sily. What it does allow us to infer is that you THINK our beliefs are silly and incredulous.Well, an argument from incredulity is also fallacious, so it is quite irrelevant what you say if it is from 1. Ignorance, and 2. Incredulity.Have you nothing better than the same regurgitated ad nauseam argument, in response to RAZD, a giant of thought in comparison to such nonsense?Do you really think someone as intelligent as RAZD will not see the many errors in such childish, sneering comments?

You may trivialise it but it is an incredibly objectively evidenced fact. Now why people might have cause to invent answers that effectively amount to explaining the unexplainable by invoking the supernatural is a very interesting question. But before we can move forward and ask that question we have to get past the ridiculous assertion that "50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism is the default position with regard to any otherwise unevidenced claim.We have to get past RAZD's mantra that any form of atheism amounts to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". In short we have to acknowledge that no claim is made in a complete vacuuum of objective evidence. RAZD's silly straw man criteria result in any atheism towards any immaterial or undetectable supernatural claim (yes including immaterial toilet goblins) being classed as "pseudoskepticism". If he (or you) cannot apply the criteria being insisted upon to justify aheism towards something that we all agree is made-up then to require that anybody else meet those criteria is obviously unjustifiable.So the whole premise of the thread is not only a straw man, it is a self defeating straw man. Where is your evidence that immaterial toilet goblins don't exist? Or are you citing the high probablity that they are a human invention and the human ability to create such concepts as evidence against such entities actually existing? Surely not LindaLou?But if so welcome to world of rationality and reason. You old "pseudoskeptic" you.

"Evidenced possibility". Wow. Show us some stuff that show us this possibility.You do realize that there are many "possibilities"?

Are you sure you want to use the word "rational" in regards to an idea that cannot be differentiated from pure human imagination?That's a strange definition of the word "rational" you've got there.The first step is to make sure that what you're talking about isn't pure imagination. Once you do that, then we can start discussing the "rational" possibilities of existence.Before you take that first step, you're not doing anything remotely rational.