Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 1:14 AM
211 online now:
Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 207 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,462 Year: 3,499/19,786 Month: 494/1,087 Week: 84/212 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
891011Next
Author Topic:   Omphalism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 91 of 151 (547467)
02-19-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2010 9:54 AM


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

Straggler the Biblical omphalist writes:

Has it? Not if Last Thursdayism is true.

Well then neither would your biblical chronology be true.

No. But I don't claim to be agnostic towards last Thursdayism. I know the bible 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?

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.

Only if I am agnostic towrds last Thursdayism . But I am not. Don't tar me with your brush.

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.

What is the difference in terms of how valid or true the propoistion in question is?

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.

So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday.

You agree that the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism equates to guessing that a form of omphalistic creation took place. You also agree that this amounts to randomly picking last Thursday as the date of this creation. Yet you consider this guess as a sufficiently reliable to warrant your agnosticism rather than scepticism.

Meanwhile you continue to reject the biblically evidenced conclusion that the universe was brought into existence fully formed circa 4,000 years ago purely on the basis of philosophical bias against any form of biblical literalism of any sort.

In summary – Your empirical conclusions have no validity, your agnosticism towards last Thurdayism makes no sense and your opposition to biblical omphalism is derived from subjective world view and philosophical bias alone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2010 9:54 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2010 3:04 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 92 of 151 (547468)
02-19-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Straggler
02-19-2010 2:49 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
No. But I don't claim to be agnostic towards last Thursdayism. I know the bible is true.

But if the universe was created Last Thurday fully formed with your memories, then you wouldn't be able to distinguish between that and what you say you are knowing as true. You would still think that you know its true but you'd be wrong. And there's no way to show otherwise.

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.

Only if I am agnostic towrds last Thursdayism . But I am not. Don't tar me with your brush.

No, even without you being able to admit your agnosticism to Last Thursdayism. You simply cannot know, whether or not you think you can, if the universe was created fully formed Last Thursday or not.

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

What is the difference in terms of how valid or true the propoistion in question is?

Because its a 'it could've been' proposition. It could've been Last Thursday, or Wednesday, or 287 days ago... it doesn't matter when it was. Its the same philisophical proposition that a fully formed universed poofed into existence recently would be indistinguishable between the one we are thinking that we're currently observing.

So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday.

How could you show otherwise?

You agree that the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism equates to guessing that a form of omphalistic creation took place. You also agree that this amounts to randomly picking last Thursday as the date of this creation. Yet you consider this guess as a sufficiently reliable to warrant your agnosticism rather than scepticism.

No, as an unfalsifyable philisophical proposition we cannot have anything but agnosticism to it because we, quite literally, are unable to know if it is true or not.

Meanwhile you continue to reject the biblically evidenced conclusion that the universe was brought into existence fully formed circa 4,000 years ago purely on the basis of philosophical bias against any form of biblical literalism of any sort.

No, I reject it on the empirical evidence to the contrary.

In summary – Your empirical conclusions have no validity, your agnosticism towards last Thurdayism makes no sense and your opposition to biblical omphalism is derived from subjective world view and philosophical bias alone.

Swing!... and a miss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 2:49 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 93 of 151 (547477)
02-19-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2010 3:04 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
But if the universe was created Last Thurday fully formed with your memories, then you wouldn't be able to distinguish between that and what you say you are knowing as true. You would still think that you know its true but you'd be wrong. And there's no way to show otherwise.

Empirically? Yes. But the bible sheds a different light on matters. And the word of God indisputably exists whether you think the universe popped into existence last Thursday or otherwise. But the biblical evidence still suggests circa 4,000 years ago as the date of creation.

Meanwhile you continue to reject the biblically evidenced conclusion that the universe was brought into existence fully formed circa 4,000 years ago purely on the basis of philosophical bias against any form of biblical literalism of any sort.

No, I reject it on the empirical evidence to the contrary.

So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday?

Please explain?

Swing!... and a miss.

Ah the arrogance of the empiricsist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2010 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-23-2010 1:28 PM Straggler has responded

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


(1)
Message 94 of 151 (547481)
02-19-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Straggler
02-19-2010 2:30 PM


Re: Empiricism Vs Omphalism
Straggler writes:

So the entire premise of your argument is that last Thursdayism has nothing whatsoever to do with last Thursday.


If your ego requires that you engage in these silly games of oneupmanship, then I will leave you to it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 2:30 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 5:29 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 95 of 151 (547484)
02-19-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by nwr
02-19-2010 4:49 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.

Straggler writes:

So the entire premise of your argument is that last Thursdayism has nothing whatsoever to do with last Thursday.

If your ego requires that you engage in these silly games of oneupmanship, then I will leave you to it.

If your ego requires that you invent definitions of phsyical quantites that are meaningless to anyone but yourself then the silly games are all of your own making.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nwr, posted 02-19-2010 4:49 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 772 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 96 of 151 (547490)
02-19-2010 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Straggler
02-19-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Faith
Hi, Straggler.

Straggler writes:

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?

What is this obsession with my partisanship?
I thought we were debating your opinions on this topic, not mine.

Seriously, people find you aggravating because you always want to polarize the debate. Can we just talk about the concepts without picking teams?

-----

Straggler writes:

Bluejay writes:

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?

That’s what I just asked you.
You have been pushing me incessantly to answer your questions (in fact, you do this in all threads you participate in), but you answer my question by asking it back at me?
Is this an interrogation or a debate?
I don’t want to be interrogated.
Answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours.

-----

Straggler writes:

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 reminds me of a political discussion I recently had with my parents. They said, “Communism just can’t work.” I responded, “Then, how do you explain how China has been so successful?” Their response was a litany of human rights violations, denial of freedoms, etc. I then pointed out that their initial statement wasn’t that communism doesn’t treat people right, but that it doesn’t work.

Logically, as long as you define “success” as “fulfilling the basic tenets of the system I believe in,” then, obviously, any system that is different from yours will not succeed.

And, you’re doing exactly the same thing! Physical demonstrability is a requirement for knowledge in the empirical sense only! By asking for demonstrations of the effectiveness of other epistemologies, you are requiring all epistemologies be empirical!

Basically, it sounds like the statement, “Non-empirical epistemologies do not produce empirical knowledge.”

Well, hot damn, Straggler! You may be on to something there!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 2:39 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 3:07 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 97 of 151 (547861)
02-23-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Straggler
02-19-2010 3:55 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday?

Please explain?

How would I distinguish between the/an old universe and one that was created Last Thursday?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2010 3:55 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 2:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 98 of 151 (548262)
02-26-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by New Cat's Eye
02-23-2010 1:28 PM


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

So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday?

Please explain?

How would I distinguish between the/an old universe and one that was created Last Thursday?

You cannot. So on what basis are you advocating confidence in one and agnosticism towards the other?

Although you say you are agnostic towards Last Thursdayism you don't seem to be very agnostic to me. Last Thursdayism is every bit as much of a parody of genuine biblical omphalism as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is a parody of belief in God. How can you justify advocating agnosticism towards Last Thursdayism whilst denying the validity of the IPU on the basis that it is “obviously made-up”?

Wiki 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

Please explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-23-2010 1:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 2:39 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 99 of 151 (548265)
02-26-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Straggler
02-26-2010 2:06 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
So on what basis are you advocating confidence in one and agnosticism towards the other?

Yawn. In Message 78, I presented all the explanations I have provided in this thread to answer the above. Here they are again:

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.




This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 2:06 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 100 of 151 (548273)
02-26-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Blue Jay
02-19-2010 6:25 PM


Re: 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?

What is this obsession with my partisanship? I thought we were debating your opinions on this topic, not mine.

Where did we decide that? If you are advocating agnosticism towards omphalism then why so reticent to declare how confident you are in the rival empirical conclusion and the basis of that conclusion? It may well be that your reasons are identical to mine in which case we have no real argument. Isn't common ground the aim here?

Can we just talk about the concepts without picking teams?

If you want. But why do you want to remain on the fence? Do you not have a reasoned opinion on this matter? Isn't taking a position and arguing it the entire point of a debate board? Anyway let's have a quick recap of your position such as it is:

Bluejay writes:

As near as I can tell from the physical evidence around me, the earth is billions of years old.

Straggler writes:

Yes and I have asked you how much confidence you have in that form of evidence and that conclusion?

Bluejay writes:

Why do you assume that this is a simple or even a meaningful question?

What confidence can I have in an epistemology?

Straggler writes:

Well on what basis do you deem any one epistemology as preferable or superior to any other? Why do you trust empirical conclusions over biblical omphalist conclusions regarding the age of the Earth? For example.

I remain unclear as to why you don't want to answer that question. I remain unclear as to how you can state belief in the empirical conclusion whilst simultaneously denying that one epistemology can be considered superior to another. This all seems very evasive and contradictory. But have it your way.

Bluejay writes:

And, how does one demonstrate reliability?

Straggler writes:

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?

That’s what I just asked you.

Not exactly. But I will answer my own question if it makes you happy. It is only possible to demonstrate the reliability of a method of knowing if it can in practise tell us something about the reality that exists external to our own minds that is shared with others and can thus be verified independently. It doesn't have to be empirical in principle. Nor does every single conclusion need to be independently verified. But the method of knowing does have to meet that criteria in order for conclusions made on that basis to to even possibly be distinguished from faith based belief (or just assumption).

Answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours.

Dude one thing I absolutely do not do (usually at the expense of brevity and succinctness) is evade questions. Anything you think I am not answering feel free to pursue me on and I absolutely guarantee that I will answer it. Will you do the same?

I then pointed out that their initial statement wasn’t that communism doesn’t treat people right, but that it doesn’t work.

I didn't say that other epistemologies cannot work. I said that if you are unable to demonstrate that it works then you are simply assuming that it does on faith. Maybe reading cloud formations really can lead to reliable conclusions regarding the mood of an entirely undetectable and non-intervening god. But why on Earth would we take that possibility seriously?

Logically, as long as you define “success” as “fulfilling the basic tenets of the system I believe in,” then, obviously, any system that is different from yours will not succeed.

Well then provide the criteria upon which omphalistic claims are being made and the basis for why these criteria are logically valid. Provide a means of determining "success" that is logically valid and then you might have an argument. As things stand you don't.

And, you’re doing exactly the same thing! Physical demonstrability is a requirement for knowledge in the empirical sense only! By asking for demonstrations of the effectiveness of other epistemologies, you are requiring all epistemologies be empirical!

No. I am asking that they are demonstrably reliable. If you can think of a way of demonstrating the reliability of a form of knowing without it's claims being detectable by anybody else then I am all ears.

Basically, it sounds like the statement, “Non-empirical epistemologies do not produce empirical knowledge.”

No. I am arguing a practical point. Not one of a priori philosophical bias. If the method of knowing from which omphalism (or whatever) is derived is unable to demonstrate itself as reliable to anyone else then on what basis are the conclusions derived by means of that form of knowing knowledge rather than belief?

Well, hot damn, Straggler! You may be on to something there!

And you would be onto something if you could tell us how logically a form of knowing (ideally one relevant to claims of omphalism for the sake of the topic) can be established as reliable unless it tells us something about the reality that is shared, common and detectable by others?

Seriously, people find you aggravating because you always want to polarize the debate.

Oh dear. Yet again it seems that I am being caricatured as some sort of wild eyed empiricist who denies the existence of anything that cannot be measured or mathematically modelled. This is of course utter nonsense. I have never said any such thing. But it is easier for those preaching the gospel of agnosticism to convince themselves that anyone who does not adhere to the tenet of the unknowable must be doing so on the basis of some imbecilic black and white tautology. In fact all I am doing (all I have ever done) to inspire this reaction is ask the following:

1) On what basis is the conclusion made?
2) Is the form of knowing on which the conclusion was made demonstrably reliable (i.e. demonstrably superior to guessing)?
3) If the form of knowing applied to draw the conclusion in question (omphalism in this case) is not demonstrably reliable then how does confidence in this conclusion differ from faith?
4) If the belief in question is effectively faith based why would I be any less sceptical of this particular conclusion than any of the other entirely unevidenced and unfalsifiable logical possibilities that can be to plucked from the collective arse of human imagination?

Enjoy.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Blue Jay, posted 02-19-2010 6:25 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Blue Jay, posted 02-26-2010 10:08 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 101 of 151 (548274)
02-26-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
You seem to be simply saying that omphalism is a logical possibility that cannot ever be refuted. Even in principle. If that is simply your criteria for PAP agnosticism then we are back to all of the other such beings, entities and scenarios that can be made equally irreutable in principle.

Imagine that there is an IPU that is NOT omnipotent and having created our universe is now just unable to ever interract with it ever again because she exists in an entirely different plane of reality. Are you agnostic towards this entirely unknowable IPU concept?

Last Thursdayism is every bit as much of a parody of genuine biblical omphalism as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is a parody of belief in God. How can you justify advocating agnosticism towards Last Thursdayism whilst denying the validity of the IPU on the basis that it is “obviously made-up”?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 2:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 3:43 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 102 of 151 (548277)
02-26-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
02-26-2010 3:13 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
I guess the confusion is coming from my acknowledgment of PAP agnosticism while also doubting the claim.

Last Thursdayism? IPU?

"I don't know, but I doubt it."

Biblical Omphalism?

"Falsified."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 3:13 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 103 of 151 (548278)
02-26-2010 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2010 3:43 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Last Thursdayism? IPU?

"I don't know, but I doubt it."

Good grief CS are you saying that you think these conclusions unlikely to be true?

Biblical Omphalism?

"Falsified."

Falsified? But biblical omphalism is as unfalsifiable as Last Thursdayism surely? The empirical evidence is identical in both scenarios.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 4:03 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 104 of 151 (548281)
02-26-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler
02-26-2010 3:48 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Last Thursdayism? IPU?
"I don't know, but I doubt it."

Good grief CS are you saying that you think these conclusions unlikely to be true?

In the sense that they are post-hoc, 'it could have been', rationalizations without evidence, or any reason to think so, and simply left as philosophical possibilities, yes. But not in the sense that I have weighed up the possibilities and determined the likelihood of each and found one to be lower than the other. I don't think we can do that.

Biblical Omphalism?

"Falsified."

Falsified? But biblical omphalism is as unfalsifiable as Last Thursdayism surely? The empirical evidence is identical in both scenarios.

I don't think so. With Biblical Omphalism, we have the addition of 6000 years (minus a few days) of evidence to consider that suggests that the Earth is, in fact, older.

Unless the omphalist counters with a 'well, it could have been...' post-hoc rationalization that I would simply doubt for the above reasons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 3:48 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2010 4:16 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 105 of 151 (548285)
02-26-2010 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Your proclamations of doubt and your denial of the validity of relative likelihood seem contradictory.

CS writes:

Last Thursdayism? IPU?

"I don't know, but I doubt it."

Straggler writes:

Good grief CS are you saying that you think these conclusions unlikely to be true?

CS writes:

In the sense that they are post-hoc, 'it could have been', rationalizations without evidence, or any reason to think so, and simply left as philosophical possibilities, yes. But not in the sense that I have weighed up the possibilities and determined the likelihood of each and found one to be lower than the other. I don't think we can do that.

So you don't think that the empirical conclusion is more likely to be correct than the Last Thursday conclusion? Then in what sense do you "doubt it"?

So you don't think the IPU is more likely to not exist than to exist? Then in what sense do you "doubt it"?

I don't think so. With Biblical Omphalism, we have the addition of 6000 years (minus a few days) of evidence to consider that suggests that the Earth is, in fact, older.

Only if you assume that Last Thursdayism isn't true. On what basis do you make that assumption?

Unless the omphalist counters with a 'well, it could have been...' post-hoc rationalization that I would simply doubt for the above reasons.

Your claims of doubt, confidence and agnosticism seem contradictory.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 4:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2010 4:26 PM Straggler has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
891011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019