|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pseudoskepticism and logic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
This has once again become far too vague for more discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Curiously, the burden to provide evidence for you position is independent of any other position or the relative merits of evidence for it. That is very debatable with regard to assessing the relative likelihood of two competing mutually exclusive explanations.
If you claim a position other than agnostic, you incur the burden. This burden is well established for positive claims, but the point here is that it applies equally to negative claims. This distinction between negative and postive evidence is silly. There is only positive evidence for competing mutually exclusive explanations.
RAZD subtitle writes: still no evidence? Evidence of what? What are we discussing exactly here? Nobody seems to know. You have trumped even your own past levels of ambiguity by insising on evidence in a thread where nobody knows what the actual topic is or what it is you are asking for evidence of. If you want to take the atheism example I gave in my previous post and make this thread specifically about the evidence in favour of the possibiliy that gods are human inventions then that is fine by me. If not then just say so and I might go and start my own thread explicitly on that topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Please read. Once again it seems you are misrepresenting information that is right in front of you.
If you claim a position other than agnostic, you incur the burden. This burden is well established for positive claims, but the point here is that it applies equally to negative claims.
This distinction between negative and postive evidence is silly. Curiously claims are not evidence, nor vice versa.
Curiously, the burden to provide evidence for you position is independent of any other position or the relative merits of evidence for it.
That is very debatable with regard to assessing the relative likelihood of two competing mutually exclusive explanations. No, it isn't - it is just pointing out that if you have a position other than agnostic that you need to support it, you have a burden of proof. This is the essence of why agnostic is the default logical position when there is inconclusive evidence one way or the other.
If you want to take the atheism example I gave in my previous post and make this thread specifically about the evidence in favour of the possibiliy that gods are human inventions then that is fine by me. Again I refer to the OP:
quote: This is essentially what you are claiming yes? If that is your claim then, yes, the burden is on you to provide evidence that supports it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
I'm a bit confused. Are you arguing that an atheist needs to provide evidence for their views?
According to wiki, Agnosticism is just the view that certain claims are unknown or unknowable. Just because something is unknowable doesn't preclude a person from having a claim. You can be both agnostic and atheistic. You don't believe in God but you concede that the existence of God is unknown at this time or unknowable. The people who need to provide evidence for their claims are the ones who are not agnostic (e.g. those who claim to know that God exists or doesn't exist). Because they claim it is knowable, they must provide the empirical data to support their claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Izanagi, and welcome to the fray,
The people who need to provide evidence for their claims are the ones who are not agnostic (e.g. those who claim to know that God exists or doesn't exist). Because they claim it is knowable, they must provide the empirical data to support their claim. I would say "evidence" instead of "empirical data", as empirical data is not always available, but yes, if you have a positive or a negative hypothesis, there is a burden of proof on you to show support for your argument. In this thread I want to focus on the need to support any negative hypothesis. For the atheist, for example, one needs to demonstrate that there is more than an absence of evidence for evidence of absence. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
According to wiki, Agnosticism is just the view that certain claims are unknown or unknowable. Just because something is unknowable doesn't preclude a person from having a claim. You can be both agnostic and atheistic. You don't believe in God but you concede that the existence of God is unknown at this time or unknowable. If that is the case, then what exactly is different about them? They sound analogous without the qualifiers there.
The people who need to provide evidence for their claims are the ones who are not agnostic (e.g. those who claim to know that God exists or doesn't exist). Because they claim it is knowable, they must provide the empirical data to support their claim. Unless of course from the outset their claim entails that it is an unprovable position, yet may be more likely due to any number of reasons. A claim is strengthened, obviously, with rock solid empirical evidence. Anecdotal evidence is at least admissible, but does not have the explanatory power that empirical evidence does. You can make any number of claims, but the claimant always needs to remember that the burden of proof ultimately lies with them. "Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
OK RAZD,
This doesn't seem that difficult to understand. Position A: There was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago. Position B: There was NOT a worldwide flood 4000 years ago. Position C: I actually don't know, because I don't know enough about geology ( I am not qualified to peer review geologic papers.) C is not required to do anything, but you are correct both A and B must provide evidence of their claims. Often we see people take position A or B when they should actually be in C. Maybe it's just me but I don't see a big difference between someone who read there was a flood and someone who read there wasn't one. Both look like you are just believing what someone else told you. Edited by petrophysics1, : typo Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Thanks petrophysics1,
That's it in a nutshell.
Often we see people take position A or B when they should actually be in C. Maybe it's just me but I don't see a big difference between someone who read there was a flood and someone who read there wasn't one. Both look like you are just believing what someone else told you. Good point, however one can find evidence of what the actual geologists, paleontologists, etc., have done in the journals. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes: If that is the case, then what exactly is different about them? They sound analogous without the qualifiers there. Because there are people who are agnostic atheists and there are people who are agnostic theists. Agnostic atheists do not believe in deities but they also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnostic theists believe in deities but also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism, according to wiki, just means that certain claims are not known (there is no currently available data to support or refute the claim) or are unknowable (there can never be any data to support or refute the claim).
Hyroglyphx writes: Unless of course from the outset their claim entails that it is an unprovable position, yet may be more likely due to any number of reasons. A claim is strengthened, obviously, with rock solid empirical evidence. Anecdotal evidence is at least admissible, but does not have the explanatory power that empirical evidence does. You can make any number of claims, but the claimant always needs to remember that the burden of proof ultimately lies with them. What I meant by my example is that any person who knows for a fact, one way or the other, must provide empirical data to support their claims. For example, I am an agnostic Deist. I am a Deist because I believe in God, although my idea of God is somewhat modified from the Judeo-Christian God. And I am agnostic because while I believe God exists, I cannot know that he exists. For me, it is a matter of faith. I'd be happy to tell you my subjective reasons for believing, but I am almost certain my subjective reasons won't convince you if you happen to not believe in God. So I feel anything unknowable shouldn't be argued as if it is, i.e. trying to convince someone of your claim because your claim is right and theirs is wrong. That, to me, shouldn't be done. It's the difference between believing and knowing. Belief, in the context that I am using it, is faith. For me, faith is generally unknowable and so shouldn't be argued at all. People should not be trying to convince others of something that can't be proven. Once something is knowable it isn't faith, it's knowledge. And if something is knowable, then there should be empirical data that can be used to support this knowable claim. That's why I have a lot of problems with those faux Christians who attempt to shove religion down everyone's throats. They claim to know God exists, but can't prove it using empirical data. And they need to use empirical data to prove the existence of God because we set science to the same standards since science deals with knowledge. After all, we don't accept string theory just because someone says it to be true. When the LHC starts running, we'll have data to begin to falsify string theory. On the same token, I don't like atheists doing the same thing, although admittedly, I haven't met as many atheists who do. But if an atheist knows that God doesn't exist, then the atheist also needs to provide empirical data to support their claim. Basically, I set any claim that is knowable to the same standard that science is set to. Disclaimer: When I say "know," I mean know in the mental sense, as in knowledge. I don't mean "know" in the "heart", "gut", or "soul" sense which is just a metaphorical way of implying faith. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
RAZD writes: For the atheist, for example, one needs to demonstrate that there is more than an absence of evidence for evidence of absence. Well, for an atheist who claims to know that God doesn't exist, then yes, that person needs to show empirical data to prove it. (see above reply for my stance on data.) Arguing the absence of evidence as evidence of absence is inadequate as I could argue that the Higgs Boson doesn't exist as there is an absence of evidence supporting its existence. Remember, mathematical models support the existence of the boson, but models must be supported by observation and experimentation. Think about it this way - black holes were hypothesized to exist before we detected them. Mathematical models were built showing their existence. But it wasn't until we detected the predicted effects of the black holes that astrophysics could know they existed. The predictions from the model corresponded to the data gathered. But this is only for those who claim that they know God exists or doesn't exist. For those who don't know, they can state their reasons for making their claim, but it is of little use trying to convince others of their claims because they can't offer up the evidence to support it. Which goes to this point:
RAZD writes: I would say "evidence" instead of "empirical data", as empirical data is not always available A person who knows must not offer up subjective evidence. For me to say God exists because of what he has done in my life, while evidence, can have alternative explanations, like coincidence. Empirical data, however, is harder to explain away so easily. Take ETs as an example. I can argue the existence of aliens and offer evidence of crop circles and eyewitness accounts of flying saucers and blurry photos. There's certainly an abundance of evidence supporting the existence of ETs. But empirical evidence would be a spaceship landing on the lawn of the White House, an ET walking out of the craft, and an autopsy performed before the eyes of billions over television. If that happened, then it'd be hard to argue against the existence of ETs, wouldn't it? That's why empirical data is so important in discussions of what is knowable. This isn't a court case. In the US criminal court system, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. There can be doubt someone did something, but you have to be reasonable sure the person committed the crime. That's why OJ got off, even though people "know" he did it, it was not beyond a reasonable doubt that he did do it. And preponderance of evidence, the standard for the US civil court system, which is whomever has more evidence supporting their side, is an even more horrible standard to do science. Science sets the standard high because empirical data can, and often does, remove all doubt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
This is essentially what you are claiming yes? Not really.
If that is your claim then, yes, the burden is on you to provide evidence that supports it. If you are asking me to to justify my claim that the the objective evidence available suggests that gods are most likely the product of human invention then I am more than willing to accept that challenge. And to discuss the evidence in favour of that conclusion. As I have already clearly stated. If that is not your request then I am not sure what this thread is about. Nor do I understand what your ill informed misrepresentations of my position and me personally have to do with whatever undefined strawman it is that you are actually railing against.
Straggler writes: Evidence of what? What are we discussing exactly here? Nobody seems to know. You have trumped even your own past levels of ambiguity by insising on evidence in a thread where nobody knows what the actual topic is or what it is you are asking for evidence of. I note that you continue to hide behind ambiguity and vagueness as to what we are actually discussing here. This is rapidly becoming your hallmark in any threads relating to anything other than the established positions of evolution and geology in which you admittedly excel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi again Izanagi.
Message 24For example, I am an agnostic Deist. I am a Deist because I believe in God, although my idea of God is somewhat modified from the Judeo-Christian God. And I am agnostic because while I believe God exists, I cannot know that he exists. For me, it is a matter of faith. I'd be happy to tell you my subjective reasons for believing, but I am almost certain my subjective reasons won't convince you if you happen to not believe in God. So I feel anything unknowable shouldn't be argued as if it is, i.e. trying to convince someone of your claim because your claim is right and theirs is wrong. That, to me, shouldn't be done. Welcome to the club.
Because there are people who are agnostic atheists and there are people who are agnostic theists. Agnostic atheists do not believe in deities but they also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnostic theists believe in deities but also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. But would you not say that they need a cause for having made a decision pro or con rather than stay solid agnostic? Isn't this parsing the details pretty finely?
A person who knows must not offer up subjective evidence. For me to say God exists because of what he has done in my life, while evidence, can have alternative explanations, like coincidence. Empirical data, however, is harder to explain away so easily. I agree with you IF empirical information is available, my concern is where it is NOT available and people still make claims pro and con. You may not be (most likely are not) aware of the back story here, a discussion (to be polite) that has spanned several thread discussing the merits of subjective evidence when there is no objective validation of the evidence.
Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?, Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument, and finally Is My Hypothesis Valid???. I believe Straggler has continued with his thread Immaterial "Evidence", but I haven't participated in that thread, not being interested in further misrepresentations of my positions and his pretensions to knowing more about my argument than I do. A summary of my position can be found at: Message 338 and Message 353, and this is pretty much the point I am starting with here:
quote: Notice that an unconfirmed encounter with something real that has never before been experienced is classified here as subjective evidence, because we don't know from one experience if it will stand up to scrutiny.
This isn't a court case. In the US criminal court system, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. There can be doubt someone did something, but you have to be reasonable sure the person committed the crime. That's why OJ got off, even though people "know" he did it, it was not beyond a reasonable doubt that he did do it. And preponderance of evidence, the standard for the US civil court system, which is whomever has more evidence supporting their side, is an even more horrible standard to do science. Science sets the standard high because empirical data can, and often does, remove all doubt. This too was discussed before, and this - problematical as it is - is the best standard available to date where the scientific method cannot be used, which is why it frequently is used in court -- life doesn't fit into nice packaged scientific experiments. I note that above you explain the cause of your agnostic deism with subjective evidence, and this fits in with my arguments regarding cause for belief/s, whether gods or aliens or ghosts. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Notice that an unconfirmed encounter with something real that has never before been experienced is classified here as subjective evidence, because we don't know from one experience if it will stand up to scrutiny. I note that above you explain the cause of your agnostic deism with subjective evidence, and this fits in with my arguments regarding cause for belief/s, whether gods or aliens or ghosts. And I would part with you on the basis that material entities (such as aliens) can be materially detected whilst immaterial entities (such as gods) are necessarily detected by some sort of immaterial "sixth sense". You seem to wish to ignore or obfuscate this fact. But many here, including myself, think that the difference between possible sightings and all but definite internal visions is a fairly important distinction when considering the potential validity of evidence. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
This is totally irrelevant to the topic, which is about providing evidence for negative claims, and is just another example of your mental masturbation/s, false dichotomies, and self-serving assumptions, based on your world view and a priori assumptions.
Are you going to repeat your previous pattern of promising evidence and failing to provide it? Consider yourself on probation in my book, as you have still failed totally to provide the evidence you claimed was in my posts for your fantasies about my positions, you still spout off on "RAZD this" and "RAZD that" seemingly unaware that your fantasies are just that - fantasies: they are not real. You have a bad history of posting false claims, and haven't done a thing to remedy that situation. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
topic straggler -- CAN you keep to a topic? This is totally irrelevant to the topic What is the topic? Be specific.
Consider yourself on probation in my book, as you have still failed totally to provide the evidence you claimed was in my posts for your fantasies about my positions, you still spout off on "RAZD this" and "RAZD that" seemingly unaware that your fantasies are just that - fantasies: they are not real. The only fantasy here is your relentless mantra that atheism equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
RAZD writes: The atheist believes it is purely rational to believe there is/are no god/s, they believe that absence of evidence is indeed not just evidence of absence, but sufficient proof of absence. They believe that they know all {A} such that there is no possible {A} that is not {B}.Message 58 I and many others have shown this to be false. Will you acknowledge this fact?
RAZD writes: which is about providing evidence for negative claims As long as you realise that no position I have ever espoused relies on proving a negative (which is logically impossible anyway) then you and I have no argument in this thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024