Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 10:42 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, kjsimons (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,225 Year: 12,261/19,786 Month: 2,042/2,641 Week: 551/708 Day: 110/135 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Omphalism
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 895 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 76 of 151 (547153)
02-16-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
02-16-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Imagination
Hi, Straggler.

Straggler writes:

If there is no conflict of epistemologies as you say then on what basis does the omphalist even arrive at a conclusion regarding the age of the universe that differs from the empirically evidenced conclusion?

What are you asking for? Evidence? Wouldn't that be the empirical way of doing things?

Omphalism is not based on evidence. It's not supposed to be, and, as far as I am aware, nobody who practices it thinks it is.

You want a different epistemology to work the way yours does, with methodologies and clear-cut, distinct bases on which to found arguments that can be evaluated by observation and experimentation. You want conclusions, you want processes and you want formulas. And, you are apparently under the impression that this is what non-empiricists do.

But, omphalism and theism and spiritualism and animism and whatever else do not work the way empiricism does! That's what makes them different epistemologies!


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2010 5:39 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 5:21 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 77 of 151 (547175)
02-16-2010 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Straggler
02-16-2010 5:58 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
Straggler writes:

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "physical."
Omphalists are making a claim as to how long the universe has physically existed. And claiming some non-empirical means of knowing this.

You did not explain what you mean by "physical" and why you treat the omphalist's claim as a physical one.

Straggler writes:

I think they are talking out of their arses.


Well, so do I. But that does not change the fact that they have introduced a radical skepticism about empirical evidence.

Edited by nwr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2010 5:58 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 5:29 PM nwr has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 78 of 151 (547222)
02-17-2010 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Straggler
02-16-2010 5:45 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
I suspect that what you are advocating here might amount to citing belief as a form evidence in itself whether you realise it or not. But let's carry on and find out.

Yeah, to some extant.

Well I think this leads to inconsistencies.

I'm sure it could. But that's neither here nor there on my position on omphalism. For that, there's really not much I can add that I haven't already said in this thread.

If you are wiling to play along I’d like to pretend that I am a biblical omphalist. Is that OK?

I guess. I don't think I'm going to be able to fake my sincerety very well though.

If so I would ask you to remind us exactly on what basis you reject biblical omphalism whilst remaining agnostic to other forms of omphalism?

In Message 35, I brought up the distinction between TAP and PAP agnosticism:

quote:
Take what Modulus brought up in the other thread:

quote:
Actually - Dawkins differentiates between 'the evidence could point in one of two directions' agnotsticism (Temporarily Agnostic in Practice (TAP) and Permanently Agnostic in Principle (PAP)). One generally would be PAP for unfalsifiable stuff but Dawkins uses this as a springboard to falsifying the premise of the design argument by arguing we shouldn't consider it PAP.

Forcing Last Thursdayism into being an evidenced conclusion would lead to TAP agnosticism while leaving it as a unfalsifiable philosophical possibility would keep it at PAP agnosticism.


In Message 50 I said what would answer your question above:

quote:
If somebody brought up Omphalism as a philisophical possibility then I would find that to be more dubious than somebody who said they observed some kind of evidence that led them to conclude Omphalism.

But since the philisophical possibility is not falsifiable then I'd be stuck at PAP agnosticism, however, the concluded Omphalism could be investigated so I'd have TAP agnosticism.


quote:
Last Thursdayism is not a claim from any kind of evidence, it is a philosophical possibility, I have PAP agnosticism. Biblical Omphalism as stemming from the Bible, is a claim that I have TAP agnosticism to until we actually look at the evidence and form a better conclusion. Biblical Omphalism, as a response to empirical evidence in a 'it could have been' position, doesn't actually make a claim, but is left as a philisophical possibility and too I would have PAP agnosticism, but I would be doubtful because they are just basing it on a priori conclusions.

Because it seems to me that, your world view aside, my claim that the universe was created 10,000 years ago fully formed is just as valid as your empirical conclusion that it is billions of years old. Tell me why it isn't?

In Message 39 I wrote:

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


and

quote:
If their response was: "No, it actually happened like...."

Then we can examine their evidence and figure out if/where they're wrong.


So, where's your evidence? How did you come to conclusion that the universe is 10,000 years old?

You said you're a biblical omphalist, if you're going to respond to scientific evidence with an 'it could have been' position, then you can find my reponse above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2010 5:45 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


(1)
Message 79 of 151 (547256)
02-17-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Blue Jay
02-16-2010 7:02 PM


Rabid Goggle Eyed Empiricist
If there is no conflict of epistemologies as you say then on what basis does the omphalist even arrive at a conclusion regarding the age of the universe that differs from the empirically evidenced conclusion?

What are you asking for?

Asking for? I am pointing out that if an omphalist denies the validity of empirical evidence and conclusions regarding the age of the universe then they must have some alternative basis upon which they have drawn their rival conclusion regarding this matter.

Evidence?

If they call it evidence. A "reason for belief" if they want to be more coy about it.

Wouldn't that be the empirical way of doing things?

Only if the "evidence" (or reason for belief) in question is empirical. If it isn't empirical then (by definition) it isn't "the empirical way of doing things". I don't care what basis for their belief they cite. I simply ask why they have any confidence in that method of knowing. Why is that such an outrageously unreasonable question?

Omphalism is not based on evidence. It's not supposed to be, and, as far as I am aware, nobody who practices it thinks it is.

The only actual omphalists I am aware of are biblical omphalists. And they very definitely do claim that biblical literalism (specifically regarding chronology) is a superior form of knowing to empirical investigation in relation to determining the age of the Earth. See the links in Message 28 if you don't believe me. The very term "Omphalos" is derived from this exact epistemology.

I posited Last Thursdayists who have drawn their Last Thursdayist conclusion on the basis of subjective evidence as a hypothetical alternative to this. Precisely because I am unaware of any other actual omphalists in existence. What other omphalists are you talking about? And are you seriously suggesting that they have made their omphalistic conclusion on the basis of no reason whatsoever? Isn't a conclusion made without any reason at all simply called "randomly guessing"?

You want a different epistemology to work the way yours does, with methodologies and clear-cut, distinct bases on which to found arguments that can be evaluated by observation and experimentation.

You can make me out to be the rabid goggle eyed empiricist if it makes you feel better. All I am actually requesting is that any proposed form of knowing be able to demonstrate that it is able to draw conclusions that are more reliable than guessing. And suggesting that if it cannot do this then it is simply faith and should rationally be treated as no differently to any other entirely faith based unevidenced position.

You want conclusions, you want processes and you want formulas.

No. I want people to explain why they are agnostic towards some things that are by definition evidentially unknowable and unfalsifiable whilst rejecting other things that are evidentially identical. If faith is the answer then fine. But don't tell me I should lower my skepticism and be agnostic towards some things just because others have faith in them.

And, you are apparently under the impression that this is what non-empiricists do.

What are you talking about? Where are you getting this from? And why the sudden hostility?

But, omphalism and theism and spiritualism and animism and whatever else do not work the way empiricism does!

Well on that we agree.

That's what makes them different epistemologies!

This thread is effectively about methods of knowing. Are all epistemologies equal? Or are some methods of knowing superior and deserving of more confidence than others? It is not at all clear whether or not you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be superior in terms of reliability and validity to the biblical omphalist conclusion. Can you clarify your position on this?

You seem to be suggesting that all epistemologies are to be considered equally valid and reliable? But does not a demonstrable ability to make reliable and testable predictions elevate some forms of knowing ahead of others in terms of the confidence we can have in them and the conclusions derived from them?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Blue Jay, posted 02-16-2010 7:02 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 02-17-2010 10:06 PM Straggler has responded

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


(1)
Message 80 of 151 (547257)
02-17-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by nwr
02-16-2010 10:35 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
You did not explain what you mean by "physical" and why you treat the omphalist's claim as a physical one.

Do you accept that time is a physical property? Then short of being a pedantic arse you will understand that there is a conflict of both conclusion and method of knowing when a Last Thursdayist claims that the universe has existed for less than a week whilst the empiricist claims that it has been in existence for billions of years.

Well, so do I. But that does not change the fact that they have introduced a radical skepticism about empirical evidence.

I am sorry Nwr but I see no point conversing with you further on this matter. I may be wrong. It may be that the succinct intelligence of your points is being lost on me. Others reading this can decide that for themselves. But I personally see no further point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 02-16-2010 10:35 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 02-17-2010 5:40 PM Straggler has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 81 of 151 (547258)
02-17-2010 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Straggler
02-17-2010 5:29 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
Straggler writes:

Do you accept that time is a physical property?


"Time" is a name we use for a physical property. It does not follow that every use of the word "time" is making a physical claim.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 5:29 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 5:50 PM nwr has responded

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


(1)
Message 82 of 151 (547260)
02-17-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by New Cat's Eye
02-17-2010 11:52 AM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
So, where's your evidence? How did you come to conclusion that the universe is 10,000 years old?

I came to on the basis of biblical chronology. I am not saying that I know this to be true. I am simply saying that this method of knowing is no less valid than your empirical methodology.

Last Thursdayism is not a claim from any kind of evidence, it is a philosophical possibility, I have PAP agnosticism.

If somebody proposes Last Thursdayism on the basis of no reason whatesoever how is this any different to guessing that omphalism is true and randomly picking a date that it occurred?

Yet you claim agnosticism to this form of philosophical guessing whilst rejecting my form of omphalism which has an epistemology behind it that is no less valid than your empiricism. How can you justify this?

(How am I doing on the pretending? )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2010 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2010 6:00 PM Straggler has responded

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


(1)
Message 83 of 151 (547262)
02-17-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by nwr
02-17-2010 5:40 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
"Time" is a name we use for a physical property.

Yes the physical property of time. What alternative form of "time" are you proposing that omphalists are using?

It does not follow that every use of the word "time" is making a physical claim.

So what exactly is a Last Thursdayist claiming with regard to time then? Be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 02-17-2010 5:40 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nwr, posted 02-17-2010 9:58 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 84 of 151 (547263)
02-17-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Straggler
02-17-2010 5:42 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
I came to on the basis of biblical chronology. I am not saying that I know this to be true. I am simply saying that this method of knowing is no less valid than your empirical methodology.

Empirical methodology put a man on the moon. What has biblical chronology done?

Isn't it obvious that empirical methodology is more valid?

If somebody proposes Last Thursdayism on the basis of no reason whatesoever how is this any different to guessing that omphalism is true and randomly picking a date that it occurred?

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

Yet you claim agnosticism to this form of philosophical guessing whilst rejecting my form of omphalism which has an epistemology behind it that is no less valid than your empiricism. How can you justify this?

Because empiricism IS more valid. But it says nothing to the philisophical possibility of Last Thursdayism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 5:42 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 6:20 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


(1)
Message 85 of 151 (547265)
02-17-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by New Cat's Eye
02-17-2010 6:00 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Empirical methodology put a man on the moon.

Has it? Not if Last Thursdayism is true. I thought you were agnostic towards Last Thursdayism? So you don't actually know what empiricism has achieved or not achieved do you?

Isn't it obvious that empirical methodology is more valid?

If you believe in empiricism it is very obvious. But it is equally obvious to me that God exists, that Jesus is my saviour and that the bible is the most reliable method of knowing anything. More reliable than mere temporal empirical theories.

If somebody proposes Last Thursdayism on the basis of no reason whatesoever how is this any different to guessing that omphalism is true and randomly picking a date that it occurred?

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

It can't. But bidn't you say you were agnostic towards the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism made on the basis of no reason or evidence whatsoever?

Are you agnostic about all random guesses? Or do you usually consider such a method to be rather unlikley to result in reliable results?

Because empiricism IS more valid. But it says nothing to the philisophical possibility of Last Thursdayism.

Well if Last Thursdayism is true empirical conclusions pertaining to any date prior to last Thursday are not valid. Are they? You are simply assuming that they are. Which is an invalid assumption if you are truly agnostic about Last thusdayism

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2010 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2010 9:54 AM Straggler has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 86 of 151 (547288)
02-17-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Straggler
02-17-2010 5:50 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
Straggler writes:

So what exactly is a Last Thursdayist claiming with regard to time then?


He is claiming that empirical methods for determining time give wrong answers. The reasonable conclusion is that his concept of time is very different from that of the physical time that we ordinarily use.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 5:50 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 2:30 PM nwr has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 895 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 87 of 151 (547290)
02-17-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Straggler
02-17-2010 5:21 PM


Re: Rabid Goggle Eyed Empiricist
Hi, Straggler.

Straggler writes:

All I am actually requesting is that any proposed form of knowing be able to demonstrate that it is able to draw conclusions that are more reliable than guessing.

And, how does one demonstrate reliability?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 5:21 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 2:39 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 88 of 151 (547331)
02-18-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Straggler
02-17-2010 6:20 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Empirical methodology put a man on the moon.

Has it? Not if Last Thursdayism is true.

Well then neither would your biblical chronology be true.

I thought you were agnostic towards Last Thursdayism? So you don't actually know what empiricism has achieved or not achieved do you?

As an unfalsifiable philisophical possibility, we are unable to know if it is true or not, but this casts the same agnosticism on your biblical chronology as well.

All that aside, and considering what we do know, we're left with empirical methodology acheiving more than biblical chronology.

If you believe in empiricism it is very obvious. But it is equally obvious to me that God exists, that Jesus is my saviour and that the bible is the most reliable method of knowing anything. More reliable than mere temporal empirical theories.

How have you tested the reliability of the bible as a method? And what has a biblical methodology acheived?

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

It can't. But bidn't you say you were agnostic towards the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism made on the basis of no reason or evidence whatsoever?

As an unfalsifyable philisophical possibility, in an 'it could have been' sense, yes. But as an actual claim I would doubt.

Are you agnostic about all random guesses? Or do you usually consider such a method to be rather unlikley to result in reliable results?

Yes, but Last Thursdayism isn't a random guess, its philisophical proposition.

Because empiricism IS more valid. But it says nothing to the philisophical possibility of Last Thursdayism.

Well if Last Thursdayism is true empirical conclusions pertaining to any date prior to last Thursday are not valid. Are they? You are simply assuming that they are. Which is an invalid assumption if you are truly agnostic about Last thusdayism.

But this is about biblical chronology making an actual claim on the age of the universe, not just a musing on the tentativity of an unfalsifyable possibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2010 6:20 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 2:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


(1)
Message 89 of 151 (547463)
02-19-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by nwr
02-17-2010 9:58 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
So the entire premise of your argument is that last Thursdayism has nothing whatsoever to do with last Thursday. Call me an pedantic old stick in the mud if you will but I would suggest that the clue is the name.

But whatever.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by nwr, posted 02-17-2010 9:58 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nwr, posted 02-19-2010 4:49 PM Straggler has responded

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


(1)
Message 90 of 151 (547464)
02-19-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Blue Jay
02-17-2010 10:06 PM


Faith
It is not at all clear whether or not you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be superior in terms of reliability and validity to the biblical omphalist conclusion. Can you clarify your position on this?

All I am actually requesting is that any proposed form of knowing be able to demonstrate that it is able to draw conclusions that are more reliable than guessing.

And, how does one demonstrate reliability?

Well let me ask you - How do you think it is even possible for one to practically demonstrate the reliability of a method of knowing?

And if one suggests a form of knowing that is unable to be demonstrated as reliable in any practical sense then how can one consider confidence in the conclusions of that form of knowing as anything but faith?

And if faith is all you are advocating with regard to omphalism then on what basis is agnosticism rather than scepticism the rational conclusion to omphalism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 02-17-2010 10:06 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Blue Jay, posted 02-19-2010 6:25 PM Straggler has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
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