Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:27 PM
31 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Author Topic:   Omphalism
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3095 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 121 of 151 (554039)
04-06-2010 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Straggler
04-02-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
quote:
What is the rational conclusion regarding the age of the Earth?

The scientific consensus age of 4.x billion years

quote:
How confident of this conclusion do you think we can rationally be?

Reasonably confident - the biggest assumption is constancy of physics, but this seems to have some evidence to support it. [/quote]

quote:
Does your answer to this question (with the implicit lack of certainty that we all seem to agree is necessary) really allow you to claim agnosticism towards the conclusion that the Earth was created less than a week ago?

My approach means we rule out omphalism as a possibility because it is intrinsically impossible to prove or disprove.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 04-02-2010 6:32 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 1:51 PM Peepul has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 122 of 151 (554108)
04-06-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by New Cat's Eye
04-05-2010 4:47 PM


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

Do you not consider the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be true than the Last Thursdayist conclusion?

CS writes:

Not rationally, no, but still: yes.

Straggler writes:

So the rational conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is..... What?

CS writes:

What the empirical evidence suggests, although it can't show that it wasn't created last thursday.

Why is the empirical conclusion the rational conclusion if you deem it rationally to be no more likely to be true than the omphalist (Last Thursdayist, Last month-ist, whatever) conclusion?

This seems contradictory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-05-2010 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 2:08 PM Straggler has responded

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


(1)
Message 123 of 151 (554109)
04-06-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Peepul
04-06-2010 5:45 AM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
What is the rational conclusion regarding the age of the Earth?

The scientific consensus age of 4.x billion years

OK.

How confident of this conclusion do you think we can rationally be?

Reasonably confident - the biggest assumption is constancy of physics, but this seems to have some evidence to support it.

OK.

My approach means we rule out omphalism as a possibility......

Rule out? That seems a little too convenient. In what sense do you mean "rule out"? Do you just mean ignore the question in any practical sense? (In which case I agree entirely I might add). Do you "rule out" all things which are empirically unknowable and what exactly do you mean by "rule out"?

....because it is intrinsically impossible to prove or disprove.

What can we "prove" or "disprove" with absolute certainty? And those who would advocate a form of omphalism would disagree that it is entirely unknowable in the way you are suggesting. It may not be empirically knowable. But all sorts of non-empirical methods of knowing could be claimed as the basis for an omphalistic conclusion.

If someone tells you that the universe was omphamistically created last year and that they know this by divine revelation of some sort on what basis do you "rule out" their claim? Aside from practical irrelevance how much credence would you give the veracity of this claim?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Peepul, posted 04-06-2010 5:45 AM Peepul has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 124 of 151 (554110)
04-06-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Straggler
04-06-2010 1:39 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Why is the empirical conclusion the rational conclusion if you deem it rationally to be no more likely to be true than the omphalist (Last Thursdayist, Last month-ist, whatever) conclusion?

Because you can't use the empirical data to determine the likelyhood of Last Thursdayism even though the data suggests that its older. Its rational to follow the data, but its just not saying anything about whether or not everything was created last thursday.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 1:39 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


(1)
Message 125 of 151 (554126)
04-06-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2010 2:08 PM


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

Do you not consider the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be true than the Last Thursdayist conclusion?

CS writes:

Not rationally, no, but still: yes.

Straggler writes:

So the rational conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is..... What?

CS writes:

What the empirical evidence suggests, although it can't show that it wasn't created last thursday.

Straggler writes:

Why is the empirical conclusion the rational conclusion if you deem it rationally to be no more likely to be true than the omphalist (Last Thursdayist, Last month-ist, whatever) conclusion? This seems contradictory.

CS writes:

Because you can't use the empirical data to determine the likelyhood of Last Thursdayism even though the data suggests that its older. Its rational to follow the data, but its just not saying anything about whether or not everything was created last thursday.

But why is it rational to follow the empirical data? In doing so you are implicitly rejecting the key omphalist claim that the empirical data you are following is deceptive. But you previously said that omphalistic claims could not be rationally discarded as inferior.

Again - This seems contradictory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 3:46 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 126 of 151 (554138)
04-06-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Straggler
04-06-2010 3:07 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
But why is it rational to follow the empirical data? In doing so you are implicitly rejecting the key omphalist claim that the empirical data you are following is deceptive. But you previously said that omphalistic claims could not be rationally discarded as inferior.

In Last Thursdayism, the empirical evidence still suggests old age. Its rational to believe it, but you'd just be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 3:07 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 1:17 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


(1)
Message 127 of 151 (554327)
04-07-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2010 3:46 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Previously:

Straggler writes:

Do you not consider the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be true than the Last Thursdayist conclusion?

CS writes:

Not rationally, no, but still: yes.

And now:

CS writes:

In Last Thursdayism, the empirical evidence still suggests old age. Its rational to believe it, but you'd just be wrong.

So rationally we should have confidence in the empirically evidenced age of the Earth. But simultaneously we cannot rationally consider this conclusion as any more likely to be correct than the omphalist conclusion which specifically states that the empirical evidence is misleading and unreliable. So (according to you) we can rationally have confidence in a conclusion whilst simultaneously rationally accepting that this same conclusion is no more likely to be reliable than it is unreliable.

Huh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 3:46 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2010 1:46 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 128 of 151 (554331)
04-07-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Straggler
04-07-2010 1:17 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
So rationally we should have confidence in the empirically evidenced age of the Earth. But simultaneously we cannot rationally consider this conclusion as any more likely to be correct than the omphalist conclusion which specifically states that the empirical evidence is misleading and unreliable.

If not, then you'd be able to use the empirical evidence to disprove Last Thursdayism.

So (according to you) we can rationally have confidence in a conclusion whilst simultaneously rationally accepting that this same conclusion is no more likely to be reliable than it is unreliable.

Not exactly, we can't show that the empirical conclusion is more reliable than Last Thursdayism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 1:17 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 1:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


(1)
Message 129 of 151 (554333)
04-07-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2010 1:46 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
So (according to you) we can rationally have confidence in a conclusion whilst simultaneously rationally accepting that this same conclusion is no more likely to be reliable than it is unreliable.

Not exactly, we can't show that the empirical conclusion is more reliable than Last Thursdayism.

So explain to me why it is you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be the rational conclusion. As you have previously stated to be the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2010 1:46 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2010 2:00 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 130 of 151 (554334)
04-07-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Straggler
04-07-2010 1:56 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
So explain to me why it is you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be the rational conclusion.

It follows from sound reasoning from the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 1:56 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 2:02 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


(1)
Message 131 of 151 (554335)
04-07-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2010 2:00 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
It follows from sound reasoning from the evidence.

But omphalism tells us that the evidence in question is misleading.

So why do you place empiricism over omphalism when it comes to looking at the evidence and deciding what the rational conclusion is?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2010 2:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2010 2:27 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 132 of 151 (554337)
04-07-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Straggler
04-07-2010 2:02 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
It follows from sound reasoning from the evidence.

But omphalism tells us that the evidence in question is misleading.

So why do you place empiricism over omphalism when it comes to looking at the evidence and deciding what the rational conclusion is?

Because I've seen that empiricism works and I haven't seen that omphalism does. With omphalism we have the last 10,000 years of scientific advancements suggesting that empiricism is right and omphalism isn't.

We've been over this... see Message 78 and Message 104


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2010 2:02 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Straggler, posted 04-08-2010 5:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


(1)
Message 133 of 151 (554511)
04-08-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Previously:

Straggler writes:

Do you not consider the empirical conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be true than the Last Thursdayist conclusion?

CS writes:

Not rationally, no, but still: yes.

And now:

Straggler writes:

So why do you place empiricism over omphalism when it comes to looking at the evidence and deciding what the rational conclusion is?

Because I've seen that empiricism works and I haven't seen that omphalism does.

So is it rational to consider the empirically evidenced conclusion as more likely to be correct than incorrect?

CS writes:

We've been over this...

Indeed. And yet you remain unable to see that citing the empirically evidenced conclusion as the rational one whilst simultaneously claiming that it is rationally impossible to consider this as more likely to be correct than the rival omphalist conclusion results in a contradictory position. So is it rational to consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be correct than incorrect?

That is the question. Can you answer it without contradicting yourself?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2010 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-08-2010 5:44 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 134 of 151 (554517)
04-08-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Straggler
04-08-2010 5:25 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
So is it rational to consider the empirically evidenced conclusion as more likely to be correct than incorrect?

How do you determine that?

You'd have to compare it to something. You can't use empiricism to validate empiricism...

Compared to omphalism... yeah, that one's been falsified.

Compared to Last Thursdayism? How can you show Last Thursdayism is more unlikely?

And yet you remain unable to see that citing the empirically evidenced conclusion as the rational one whilst simultaneously claiming that it is rationally impossible to consider this as more likely to be correct than the rival omphalist conclusion results in a contradictory position.

I don't claim the empirically evidenced conclusion is rationally accepted over Last Thursdayism. That's why the rational reponse to Last Thursdayism is agnosticim.

Show me why Last Thursdayism is more unlikely and you'll have a point.

So is it rational to consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth as more likely to be correct than incorrect?

No, I don't see how you can calculate that likelihood.

That is the question. Can you answer it without contradicting yourself?

Its a new questions and I just did.

The previous discussion was about accepting the empirical conlusion over an alternative. Now you're trying to validate empiricism with empiricism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Straggler, posted 04-08-2010 5:25 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 04-08-2010 5:54 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


(1)
Message 135 of 151 (554521)
04-08-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by New Cat's Eye
04-08-2010 5:44 PM


Re: Let's Pretend.....
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. Let me phrase my questions more succinctly and ask them one at a time.

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?

Edited by Straggler, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-08-2010 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-09-2010 10:04 AM Straggler has responded

  
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019