Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 12:54 PM
28 online now:
Chiroptera, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, PsychMJC, ringo, Stile, Tanypteryx (9 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,015 Year: 9,051/19,786 Month: 1,473/2,119 Week: 233/576 Day: 36/98 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Author Topic:   Omphalism
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 136 of 151 (554618)
04-09-2010 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Straggler
04-08-2010 5:54 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Do you think we can rationally consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be correct than incorrect?

Or not?

At first glance, I'm thinking no. How could you determine that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 04-08-2010 5:54 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2010 6:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 137 of 151 (554887)
04-10-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by New Cat's Eye
04-09-2010 10:04 AM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Do you think we can rationally consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be correct than incorrect. Or not?

At first glance, I'm thinking no. How could you determine that?

So rationally we should be agnostic towards the age of the Earth with no one conclusion being any more likely than any other?

Is that what you are saying?

If that is not what you are saying then which conclusion regarding the age of the Earth should we rationally consider as most likely to be correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2010 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 10:42 AM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 138 of 151 (555134)
04-12-2010 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Straggler
04-10-2010 6:44 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Do you think we can rationally consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be correct than incorrect. Or not?

At first glance, I'm thinking no. How could you determine that?

So rationally we should be agnostic towards the age of the Earth with no one conclusion being any more likely than any other?

Is that what you are saying?

No. Are you saying that you are capable of using empirical evidence to determine the likelyhood of the empirical conclusion being correct?

If that is not what you are saying then which conclusion regarding the age of the Earth should we rationally consider as most likely to be correct?

Your question is nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2010 6:44 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2010 2:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 139 of 151 (555166)
04-12-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2010 10:42 AM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Straggler writes:

Do you think we can rationally consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be correct than incorrect? Or not?

CS writes:

At first glance, I'm thinking no. How could you determine that?

So (according to you) we cannot consider the empirically evidenced conclusion as more likely to be correct than incorrect. Bizzarre.

Straggler writes:

So rationally we should be agnostic towards the age of the Earth with no one conclusion being any more likely than any other? Is that what you are saying?

CS writes:

No.

OK. So what are you saying? If all conclusions regarding the age of the Earth are not equally likely then which are more (or less) likely than others?

Are you saying that you are capable of using empirical evidence to determine the likelyhood of the empirical conclusion being correct?

You have stated that the empirical conclusion is the most rational one to take (whilst simultaneously asserting that we can have no more confidence in this being correct than incorrect - go figure). Are you citing empirical evidence as the basis upon which to conclude that the empirical conclusion is the most rational conclusion?

But to answer your question - My position is - Conclusions derived from methods of knowing which are demonstrably reliable should rationally be considered as superior to (and more likely to be correct than) conclusions based on methods of knowing that have not been and are unable to be demonstrated as reliable.

If someone claims that the Earth is (approx) 4.5 billion years old I will ask on what epystemological basis this conclusion was made and whether or not they can demonstrate to me that this claimed method of knowing is superior to just guessing. Can they make prediction based on this epystemology which can subsequently be verified? Likewise if someone claims that the Earth was created last Thursday I would ask the same. Does that answer your question?

If that is not what you are saying then which conclusion regarding the age of the Earth should we rationally consider as most likely to be correct?

Your question is nonsense.

Really? I think most scientifically minded people (including- until recently - I would have thought you too) would say that the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as being approx 4.5 billion years old is something in which we can have a high degree of confidence as being correct.

Apparently none of us are as wise as you. None of us can see that this conclusion is no more likely to be correct than incorrect and that any confidence in any conclsuion regarding the age of the Earth is misplaced. Oh if only we were all as rational as you CS.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 2:53 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 140 of 151 (555174)
04-12-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
04-12-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
So how much more likely is the empircal conclusion than Last Thursdayism?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2010 2:39 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2010 3:33 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 141 of 151 (555189)
04-12-2010 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2010 2:53 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
I see that you have stopped trying to justify your own muddled position and just started attacking my position instead. Even though I was still in pretend Omphalist mode setting out to show you that your empirical conclusion was no more justfied than my omphalist one. Which given that you stated that the empirical conclusion was no more likely to be true than untrue I would say was a success.

So how much more likely is the empircal conclusion than Last Thursdayism?

Considerably more so. Based on the comparitive demonstrable reliability of the two epystemologies in question.

Are you still claiming that the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is the rational conclusion despite also stating that rationally we can have no confidence in this conclusion as being more likely to be correct than incorrect?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 2:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 4:15 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 142 of 151 (555203)
04-12-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
04-12-2010 3:33 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
I see that you have stopped trying to justify your own muddled position and just started attacking my position instead.

from you that's hilarious. That's all I get from you.

Its more like I'm avoiding your standard protocol of ignoring my questions while continually telling me what I think.

Even though I was still in pretend Omphalist mode setting out to show you that your empirical conclusion was no more justfied than my omphalist one. Which given that you stated that the empirical conclusion was no more likely to be true than untrue I would say was a success.

I forgot about pretend Omphalist mode. I've already explained why the empirical conclusion was more justified than the Biblical Omphalism and the answer was the same as yours:

quote:
Based on the comparitive demonstrable reliability of the two epystemologies in question.

Although I phrased it as: Science put a man on the moon, what has Biblical Omphalism done?

Are you still claiming that the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is the rational conclusion despite also stating that rationally we can have no confidence in this conclusion as being more likely to be correct than incorrect?

I didn't say we couldn't have confidence in it.

I oppose you using an empystemology to determine its own likelihood of accuracy. You can't use the fact that science works against the very questioning of it working.

How can you show that Last Thursdayism is unlikely? Its precludes your empirical evidence so how can you use it against it?

What unreliable explanations of Last Thursdayism have been shown to be wrong so that you can use it as an epystemology to demonstrate against?

Those are the questions you going to have to stop avoiding if you want me to care to continue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2010 3:33 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2010 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 143 of 151 (555212)
04-12-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2010 4:15 PM


All Conclusions Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others
Its more like I'm avoiding your standard protocol of ignoring my questions while continually telling me what I think.

Given that you have claimed that the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is no more likley to be correct than incorrect in this thread I wonder whether you even know what you think yourself.

I forgot about pretend Omphalist mode. I've already explained why the empirical conclusion was more justified than the Biblical Omphalism and the answer was the same as yours:

But on what basis do you claim it is more justified than the last Thursdayist conclusion? By your own bizzarre logic the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is no more likely to be correct than the biblical omphalist one, the Last Thursdayist one or any other date I can pull out of my arse for whatever wholly subjective reason.

Although I phrased it as: Science put a man on the moon, what has Biblical Omphalism done?

Exactly what Last Thursdayism has done. Or Last Yearism or Last Monthism or ........... Last X-ism.

Are you still claiming that the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is the rational conclusion despite also stating that rationally we can have no confidence in this conclusion as being more likely to be correct than incorrect?

I didn't say we couldn't have confidence in it.

But you did say that we could not consider it as any more likely to be correct than incorect. So apparently you are advocating confidence in conclusions that we should consider just as likely to be wrong as correct.

Now that is funny!

I oppose you using an empystemology to determine its own likelihood of accuracy. You can't use the fact that science works against the very questioning of it working.

All I require is that the method of knowing being proposed is able to lead to conclusions that can be verified. Is that so unreasonable?

Show me the reliability of some non-empirical conclusions using either empirical or non-empirical methods of verification and I will absolutely take them on board as more likely to be correct than not.

How can you show that Last Thursdayism is unlikely?

You can show that the method of knowing used to make the conclusion is unable to make any conclusions that are superior to guessing.

What unreliable explanations of Last Thursdayism have been shown to be wrong so that you can use it as an epystemology to demonstrate against?

How can you show that Last Thursdayism is unlikely? Its precludes your empirical evidence so how can you use it against it?

You are concentrating too much on what is being claimed and not enough on the basis upon which the claim is being made. If I tell you that I just created the entire universe 30 seconds ago with the appearance of empirical age you can no more disprove this claim than Last Thursdayism. But you would (rightly) ask me to show you why you should believe this and treat me as a lunatic or charlatan if I cannot.

Why when it comes to last Thursdayism do you suddenly listen solely to the claim and ignore the wholly irrational basis of the claim?

The question you need to ask yourself is "Why should I believe this claim"? Until you ask that question you will continually find yourself in the ridiculous position of claiming that all conclusions are equally reliable but that some are more reliable than others. As you have done here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 4:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 5:38 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 144 of 151 (555219)
04-12-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Straggler
04-12-2010 5:06 PM


Re: All Conclusions Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others
But you did say that we could not consider it as any more likely to be correct than incorect. So apparently you are advocating confidence in conclusions that we should consider just as likely to be wrong as correct.

Now that is funny!

Logic please...

You're inability to show the likelihood of an empirical conclusion being correct does not mean that we should consider it just as likely to be incorrect.

You laughing at your own illogic makes you look like a goon.

All I require is that the method of knowing being proposed is able to lead to conclusions that can be verified. Is that so unreasonable?

Last Thurdayism is not a method of knowing. Its a philisophical proposition. A 'What-if' scenario.

Its set up to require PAP agnosticism.

The question you need to ask yourself is "Why should I believe this claim"? Until you ask that question you will continually find yourself in the ridiculous position of claiming that all conclusions are equally reliable but that some are more reliable than others. As you have done here.

No, I haven't. I'm not agnostic to Last Thursdayism and I disbelieve it. I just don't consider that a rational position based on any kind of observable evidence. I haven't said they're equally reliable, I've just questioned your ability to show the reliability of one over the other. You're ascribing position to me based on what you think I must be saying rather than what I actually am saying.

The contradiction you think you are seeing is from my position of the rational conclusion being what empirical evidence suggests: billions of years.

But Last Thursdayism is not an arrived at position from any kind of methodology or epystemology. You're not comparing anything to anything and you're not determining any liklihoods.

Just like you can't prove that we're all not in the Matrix. You can't use empirical evidence to come to a rational conclusion that we are not in the Matrix, but that doesn't mean that I cannot have confidence that I'm not or recognize that the empirical evidence seems to suggest that we are not and take my belief from there.

Just because I'm willing to admit that you cannot show that we are more likely not in the Matrix doesn't mean that I'm saying that I think there's a 50/50 chance of being in the Matrix nor that I cannot have any confidence in not being in the Matrix.

I have confidence in the conclusions of science because science works. But science would work the same in the Matrix. Being in the Matrix precludes the scientific conclusions so you can't use them as evidence against it. That doesn't mean The Matrix is in any way convincing or that I can't say that I think we are not in the Matrix.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2010 5:06 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2010 6:14 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 145 of 151 (555226)
04-12-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2010 5:38 PM


Re: All Conclusions Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others
CS writes:

Huh? How could a proposition being on the basis of no reason whatsoever ever be any different than a random guess?

CS writes:

Last Thurdayism is not a method of knowing. Its a philisophical proposition. A 'What-if' scenario.

So if Last Thursdayism is based on no evidence and is merely a "philosophical proposition" why (by your own definition) do you consider it any more likely to be true than simply guessing the age of the Earth? Why would I rationally give Last Thursdayism any more credence than a claim for the age of the Earth pulled out of a hat?

CS writes:

Logic please...

You're inability to show the likelihood of an empirical conclusion being correct does not mean that we should consider it just as likely to be incorrect.

Consistency please. I asked you if we could rationally consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be more likely correct than incorrect and you said - No. Are you now changing your mind on that? Is the empirically evidenced age of the Earth more likley to be correct than a simple guess?

Last Thurdayism is not a method of knowing. Its a philisophical proposition. A 'What-if' scenario.

Its set up to require PAP agnosticism.

So how is it different to me claiming that I personally omphalistically created the universe 30 seconds ago? Or are you agnostic to my own deistic abilities as well?

CS writes:

Huh? How could a proposition being on the basis of no reason whatsoever ever be any different than a random guess?

CS writes:

Just because I'm willing to admit that you cannot show that we are more likely not in the Matrix doesn't mean that I'm saying that I think there's a 50/50 chance of being in the Matrix nor that I cannot have any confidence in not being in the Matrix.

Then what the fuck are you saying? That you are rationally confident that you are not in the Matrix whilst rationally considering this possibility as no more likely to be correct than incorrect. What?

You yourself said that unevidenced possibilities can no more be considered as any more likely to be correct than simply guessing. There are a near infinite array of such possibilities. That makes any one of them (Matrix, last Thursdayism etc. etc. etc.) very unlikely to be true.

So is the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more likley to be correct than simply guessing the age of the Earth? Or are you going to stick to your position that it is impossible to tell if anything is more likley to be correct than guessing?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 5:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 8:01 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 146 of 151 (555252)
04-12-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Straggler
04-12-2010 6:14 PM


Re: All Conclusions Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others
So if Last Thursdayism is based on no evidence and is merely a "philosophical proposition" why (by your own definition) do you consider it any more likely to be true than simply guessing the age of the Earth?

I don't. Its worded as if it is a guess. It could have been Wednesday, or whatever. But its not on the basis of no reason whatsoever. Its specifically designed to call into the question of the basis of the empirical evidence.

Why would I rationally give Last Thursdayism any more credence than a claim for the age of the Earth pulled out of a hat?

Because you want to maintain that rationality... so you have to be Permanently Agnostic in Principle.

Consistency please.

If we go around in circles enough, at times we won't be overlapping. This is like the third lap, You're gnudging the context back and forth and I'm loosing track of what you're saying.

I asked you if we could rationally consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be more likely correct than incorrect and you said - No. Are you now changing your mind on that?

Sort of. I asked what you were comparing the liklihood to and then you changed the question and put it into another context.

Is the empirically evidenced age of the Earth more likley to be correct than a simple guess?

It sure seems like it. Science works. But I don't think you can actually rationally determine the liklihood of science being right. And I don't think you can use whatever determination of a liklihood you're using to argue against a philisophical proposition designed to call into question the epystemology itself.

So how is it different to me claiming that I personally omphalistically created the universe 30 seconds ago? Or are you agnostic to my own deistic abilities as well?

Its not, but I don't believe you. And that position is irrational because none of the empirical evidence can show that you didn't. Its unfalsifyable. The empirical evidence is unable to suggest that it is more likely that the universe has existed for 4+ billion years. The determination is internally consitant with the epystemology, and it works, but its not a claim to the actual accuracy of the number. But that doesn't mean that simply following what the evidence says and believing the empirical conclusion is irrational. It just means that disbelieving the unfalsifyable is.

Then what the fuck are you saying? That you are rationally confident that you are not in the Matrix whilst rationally considering this possibility as no more likely to be correct than incorrect. What?

That rationally believing the evidenced based conclusion is not taking a position on the likelihood of the unfalsifyable.

So, believing the scientific age of the universe while ackowledging agnosticism to Last Thursdayism is rational and consistant. Also, the position of disbelieving Last Thursdayism on the basis of the scientific evidence is irrational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2010 6:14 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2010 8:03 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 147 of 151 (555563)
04-14-2010 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2010 8:01 PM


Re: All Conclusions Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others
I don't. Its worded as if it is a guess. It could have been Wednesday, or whatever.

Exactly. So the age of the Earth concluded by Last Thursdayism is exactly equal to randomly guessing the age of the Earth. How could it possibly be any different if it is based on no evidence? Who cares how it is worded?

But its not on the basis of no reason whatsoever. Its specifically designed to call into the question of the basis of the empirical evidence.

So you keep saying. But as far as I can see it was invented to show the prepostrousness of omphalistic claims in exactly the same way that the IPU was created to combat the argument of "unknowable" and undetectable deities.

Link writes:

The belief, much like the belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is a parody of one of the many creationist arguments that the universe is only 6000 years old despite having the appearance being of 15 billion years old, with the effect of age being brought about by the creation of starlight in transit, or by creating fossils of creatures which never existed to scatter through rock strata bearing witness to geological ages that never took place. (See the article The Earth created with age ("Omphalos") for further details.)

Last Thursdayism serves to parallel many creationist assertions to illustrate by analogy just how ridiculous these creationist assertions really are. For example, a common apology for the existence of ancient animal fossils is that they were placed by Satan to test the faith of the believer. The last Thursdayist may with equal logic say the same thing about last Wednesday's newspaper. Last Thursdayism

But frankly either way, philosophical or parody, the conclusion that the Earth is no more than a week old with the omphalistic appearance of age is based on nothing that is demonstrably superior to randomly guessing the age of the Earth. And should thus rationally not be considered as any different to randomly guessing the age of the Earth.

So how is it different to me claiming that I personally omphalistically created the universe 30 seconds ago? Or are you agnostic to my own deistic abilities as well?

Its not, but I don't believe you.

Well by your truly fucked up reasoning you are being irrational in disbelieving me. Whilst we all know that anyone who seriously believes this blatantly made-up drivel is in need of psychiatric attention. Cmon CS. Get real here.

So, believing the scientific age of the universe while ackowledging agnosticism to Last Thursdayism is rational and consistant.

I do believe the scientific age of the univers eand I do acknowledge the philosophical possibility of Last Thursdayism. But you cannot believe something without considering it likely to be correct. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

You cannot have confidence in the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old whilst simultaneously having no confidence that it is over a week old. That also is ridiculous and contradictory.

Also, the position of disbelieving Last Thursdayism on the basis of the scientific evidence is irrational.

So it is irrational to disbelieve any made-up shit that self justifies itself? The Easter bunny placed me here by magic to annoy you and also omphamistically designed the entire universe 2 months ago so that you would find that claim ridiculous. In fact the more ridiculous you find it the more evidence there is that this claim is true. Now tell me it is irrational to disbelieve this bullshit. I fucking dare you!!

Let's take this step by step.

You first agreed that conclusions based on no evidence and no reasoning were no more reliable than guesses. You then stated that Last Thursdayism was a philosophical proposition, a “what if” scenario. Not a conclusion based on evidence or reasoning. But you have also stated that it is not rationally possible to consider the empirically evidenced age of the Earth as any more likely to be correct than the Last Thursdayist conclusion.

So the end result of all of this is that you must consider the empirically determined age of the Earth as no more likely to be correct than the Last Thursdayist conclusion. Which itself is no more reliable than a random guess. How can you possibly deny this based on the answers you yourself have given?

Now I know that you don’t actually consider the empirically evidenced conclusion as equivalent in terms of reliability to a random guess. But it is not my fault that the conclusion reached as a result of your step by step reasoning contradicts this. Instead it implies that there is something seriously amiss with your step by step reasoning.

The empirical evidence is unable to suggest that it is more likely that the universe has existed for 4+ billion years.

Then one wonders why we bother to empirically establsh the age of the Earth at all? When an objectively evidenced conclusion vies with a rival objectively un-evidenced but irrefutable and unknowable conclusion is it always rationally unjustifiable to consider the evidenced conclusion as more likely to be correct? Or do you apply this principle of forced agnosticism only to the question of omphlaism? If so why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 8:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-14-2010 12:37 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 148 of 151 (555602)
04-14-2010 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Straggler
04-14-2010 8:03 AM


Re: All Conclusions Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others
Exactly. So the age of the Earth concluded by Last Thursdayism is exactly equal to randomly guessing the age of the Earth. How could it possibly be any different if it is based on no evidence? Who cares how it is worded?

Back to this again

Nobody has actually concluded that the age of the Earth is Last Thursday. It is a 'what-if' scenario. From Message 39:

quote:
If someone says: "It could have been...."

Then my PAP agnosticims goes: yeah, sure, whatever

If someone says: "It was...."

Then my TAP agnosticim goes: Oh really, lets look and see


So yeah, as a conclusion from empirical evidence, we could rationally refute that evidence for Last Thursadayism and go with the scientific answer that has not been refuted. But as a philisophical proposition, we are Permantly Agnostic in Principle. The empirical evidence is not capable of showing that the Earth was not poofed last thursday because the proposition precludes that evidence.

But frankly either way, philosophical or parody, the conclusion that the Earth is no more than a week old with the omphalistic appearance of age is based on nothing that is demonstrably superior to randomly guessing the age of the Earth. And should thus rationally not be considered as any different to randomly guessing the age of the Earth.

But you still can't rationally use the empirical evidence to show that it wasn't created last thursday. So while you'd have no reason to believe it, you'd also have no empirical evidence that you could use to disbelieve it, and the rational position based on the empirical evidence would be agnosticism.

Well by your truly fucked up reasoning you are being irrational in disbelieving me. Whilst we all know that anyone who seriously believes this blatantly made-up drivel is in need of psychiatric attention. Cmon CS. Get real here.

Apparently, being rational isn't all that its cracked up to be. If you don't have the empirical evidence to base your conclusion of disbelief on, then that is not being rational. Its no big deal though, really.

I do believe the scientific age of the univers eand I do acknowledge the philosophical possibility of Last Thursdayism. But you cannot believe something without considering it likely to be correct. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

You might consider it likely to be correct but you cannot show from empirical evidence that it is likely to be correct.

You cannot have confidence in the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old whilst simultaneously having no confidence that it is over a week old. That also is ridiculous and contradictory.

But you can have confidence that it is very old while acknowledging that this doesn't necessitate having confidence that it is not young.

Yes-'old' does not have to be no-'not young' because, for all we know, it could have been poofed last thursday.

So it is irrational to disbelieve any made-up shit that self justifies itself? The Easter bunny placed me here by magic to annoy you and also omphamistically designed the entire universe 2 months ago so that you would find that claim ridiculous. In fact the more ridiculous you find it the more evidence there is that this claim is true. Now tell me it is irrational to disbelieve this bullshit. I fucking dare you!!

Whoa... Two exclamation points... calm down.

If you cannot show from the empirical evidence that the claim is false, then it is irrational to disbelieve the claim. Without a reason to believe the claim, it is also rational to not believe it, so we're left at a position of agnosticism with a lack of belief but we have not rationally reached disbelief.

You first agreed that conclusions based on no evidence and no reasoning were no more reliable than guesses. You then stated that Last Thursdayism was a philosophical proposition, a “what if” scenario. Not a conclusion based on evidence or reasoning.

First off, Last Thursdayism is not based on no reasoning.

quote:
Last Thursdayism is a response to omphalism which posits that, by the same logic, the world might have been created last Thursday (or by implication, on any given date and time), but with the appearance of age: people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth. It is aimed at the logic point that when this logic is permitted, it can be used to prove any "fixed date creation" schema.
source

The point is that the logic of the philisophical proposition of calling into question the empirical evidence, itself, does not lead us to any one particular age for the world. The logic cannot lead to the Biblical age of 6000 years any better than it can lead to last thursday.

Because the logic of it is set up to preclude the empirical evidence, you cannot use that empircal evidence to argue against the logic. For that reason, we must be Permanently Agnostic in Principle. The evidence is unable to lead us to disbelief, the rational conclusion is agnosticism, and its technically irrational to be at disbelief.

Now, you yourself recognize the ridiculousness of the rational conclusion, which goes to show that being rational is not some be-all end-all to sensible positions.

But you have also stated that it is not rationally possible to consider the empirically evidenced age of the Earth as any more likely to be correct than the Last Thursdayist conclusion.

Because empirical evidence doesn't lend itself a liklihood of being correct, nor as being more likely than an unfalsifyable conclusion. It hasn't been shown to be wrong, and it works, so its rational to believe it, but it isn't saying that another possible conclusion must be wrong or is more likely to be wrong, especially one that cannot be falsified.

So the end result of all of this is that you must consider the empirically determined age of the Earth as no more likely to be correct than the Last Thursdayist conclusion. Which itself is no more reliable than a random guess. How can you possibly deny this based on the answers you yourself have given?

That's all we can rationally conclude from the empirical evidence. I don't deny that I do disbelieve Last Thursadayism and that this is not a position derived from empirical evidence and thus it is not rational.

Now I know that you don’t actually consider the empirically evidenced conclusion as equivalent in terms of reliability to a random guess. But it is not my fault that the conclusion reached as a result of your step by step reasoning contradicts this. Instead it implies that there is something seriously amiss with your step by step reasoning.

Or your understanding of it.

There is no actual conclusion of the age from the logic behind Last Thursdayism. You're forcing it to take a position, and then trying to determine the liklihood of that position as being accurate. But that is not something you can determine from the empirical evidence. It doesn't follow from the reasoning that the scientific conclusion must be the same as a random guess.

Then one wonders why we bother to empirically establsh the age of the Earth at all? When an objectively evidenced conclusion vies with a rival objectively un-evidenced but irrefutable and unknowable conclusion is it always rationally unjustifiable to consider the evidenced conclusion as more likely to be correct? Or do you apply this principle of forced agnosticism only to the question of omphlaism? If so why?

Because science doesn't care that, rationally, it isn't actually finding the truth, all that matters is that it works. We can see from its successes that it does work, so it doesn't matter if its really all technically wrong or not (like if Last Thursdayism were true). And it isn't even saying that it is the right answer anyways, just that the answer it found is working and hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2010 8:03 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2010 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 149 of 151 (555619)
04-14-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by New Cat's Eye
04-14-2010 12:37 PM


Knowing Nothing
Because empirical evidence doesn't lend itself a liklihood of being correct, nor as being more likely than an unfalsifyable conclusion.

Insanity awaits you.

CS your position here, if applied consistently, ultimately means that you can know nothing and that you are entirely and utterly agnostic about absolutely everything. The age of the Earth is just the first of your problems. Try answering these consistently.

1) Is it more likely than a random guess that the Earth was omphamistically created Last Thursday?

2) Is the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more reliable than a random guess as to the age of the Earth?

3) Is it rational to believe in something that you have no basis for confidence in being more likely to be correct than a random guess?

4) Are you agnostic about the age of the Earth?

So while you'd have no reason to believe it, you'd also have no empirical evidence that you could use to disbelieve it, and the rational position based on the empirical evidence would be agnosticism.

Aeroplanes don't really fly because of air currents and aerodynamics. They fly because herds of telepathic flying etheral pilchards carry them along whilst telepathically convincing us that laws of aerodynamics are responsible. They also telepathically make you think this proposition is ridiculous.

By your logic you are now not only agnostic about Last Thursdayism and the age of the Earth you are also agnostic about telepathic flying pilchards and the laws of aerodynamics.

And according to you that is the rational conclusion. I have heard it said that the insane are the sanest of all. They certainly are according to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-14-2010 12:37 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-14-2010 3:30 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 150 of 151 (555627)
04-14-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Straggler
04-14-2010 2:42 PM


Re: Knowing Nothing
Interesting that you have resort to a last ditch effort of hand waving my argument by calling me crazy.

CS your position here, if applied consistently, ultimately means that you can know nothing and that you are entirely and utterly agnostic about absolutely everything.

Or, that that would just be the rational conclusion from the objective evidence.

I coulda swore that people knew that science doesn't proclaim its conclusions as truths to be known.

1) Is it more likely than a random guess that the Earth was omphamistically created Last Thursday?

I don't believe that it is, but that is not a postion arrived at rationally from the empirical evidence.

You never have shown any empirical evidence that suggests that the world was NOT created Last Thursday so you haven't even supported your claim that it is possible, let alone a convincing argument on why I should believe you.

2) Is the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more reliable than a random guess as to the age of the Earth?

Reliable? Sure, it works.

More likely to be true? I believe that it is, but but that is not a postion arrived at rationally from the empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence cannot be used to determine the probability of itself being right. You should know this.

3) Is it rational to believe in something that you have no basis for confidence in being more likely to be correct than a random guess?

It can be.

4) Are you agnostic about the age of the Earth?

Nope.

Aeroplanes don't really fly because of air currents and aerodynamics. They fly because herds of telepathic flying etheral pilchards carry them along whilst telepathically convincing us that laws of aerodynamics are responsible. They also telepathically make you think this proposition is ridiculous.

By your logic you are now not only agnostic about Last Thursdayism and the age of the Earth you are also agnostic about telepathic flying pilchards and the laws of aerodynamics.

And according to you that is the rational conclusion.

You don't understand my position.

The empirical evidence suggests that aeroplanes do really fly because of air currents and aerodynamics and it is rational to believe that. The empirical evidence does not say that an unfalsifyable concept is not doing it. If you had some empirical evidence suggesting that your pilchards were responsible, then we could (possibly) refute your evidence and thus disbelieve your concept in favor of the scientific one. If you just propose your concept as an unfalsifyable possibility, the empirical evidence is unable to refute it, and the rational conclusion based on that evidence would be not knowing, thus disbelieving the concept would be irrational (unless we could show that it was not possible). But, without a reason to believe you, we could still rationally not believe it.

So, rationally I don't believe you, but a rational conclusion of disbelief cannot be drawn from the empirical evidence, even though I rationally believe the scientific conclusion.

You think that believing the scientific conclusion is taking a position towards an unfalsifyable concept while I do not. And I'm saying that a position against an unfalsifyable concept is not something that can rationally be arrived at form the empirical evidence. If it could, then it would be falsifyable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2010 2:42 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2010 6:51 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019