Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
34 online now:
Faith, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (3 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,000 Year: 22,036/19,786 Month: 599/1,834 Week: 99/500 Day: 57/42 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 436 of 479 (571394)
07-31-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Phage0070
07-30-2010 1:26 AM


Re: It is really quite simple.
Hi Phage0070, thanks for keeping it brief.

It is true that there is a spectrum of confidence levels when considering a conclusion; one can be very sure something exists or not sure at all. However, everyone has a "credulity level" at which they believe the conclusion. This often varies depending on the importance/commonality of the claim: For instance I would be willing to take the word of a waiter that the clear fluid handed to me in a glass is water, but not so willing to take their word for them having Bigfoot locked in the freezer.

So the range of confidence you have is based on your subjective opinion in the concept being true, not on any actual calculation of probabilities.

Something previously in your experience is counted as likely, while something not previously in your experience is counted as unlikely - is that a fair statement of your position?

So someone with different life experiences, say your someone that believes they saw a bigfoot, is entirely rational to have a different subjective perception of the likelihood of the concept being true?

Someone who only believes Bigfoot may possibly exist is a number 2. Someone who believes that Bigfoot *does* exist is a number 1. Conversely, someone who believes that Bigfoot may possibly not exist is a number 2, and one who believes that Bigfoot does not exist is a number 3.

So do you now (as it appears) agree that 2 is not the same as 3 and that it is not disbelief in the concept? Then we are making progress.

Of course. Without any data how can they authoritatively speak about what does not exist out there?

Thank you.

Enjoy.

NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made.
Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added notice


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Phage0070, posted 07-30-2010 1:26 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Phage0070, posted 07-31-2010 4:06 PM RAZD has responded

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


Message 437 of 479 (571398)
07-31-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by jar
07-31-2010 1:46 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
jar writes:

Straggler writes:

If someone has an emotional need to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte is it rational and reasonable for them to believe that they actually are Napoleon Bonaparte?

For them, it might well be reasonable and rational. I would need to know what led them to that conclusion.

Primarily they have a feeling of absolute conviction that this is the case. These feelings are indescribably strong, especially when reading historical accounts of Napoleon's life which just feel wholly familiar. In addition they cite some rather vague visions as evidence of this conclusion.

jar writes:

Are they wrong, deluded? Almost certainly.

But wouldn't this also apply to our believer in the existence of Middle Earth hobbits? Or do you think that there is a significant difference between the two examples?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 1:46 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 3:30 PM Straggler has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 438 of 479 (571399)
07-31-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by onifre
07-30-2010 2:23 PM


opinion vs speculation
An interesting question onifre,

Wouldn't someone asking the question need sufficent evidence to even propose the question?

Why would the answer require such objective empirical evidence when the question was asked speculatively?

It is not the question that drives the burden of proof, but the assertion of knowing the truth (or enough about it to make an informed decision) that bears the burden.

If a question is asked speculatively, one can freely speculate in answer, but one should realize that speculation alone is just opinion.

If one speculates that the sky is green however, the reply that it is blue and that this is the truth, is what needs to be substantiated by evidence (actual lightwaves, range defined as blue, etc), which is possible to do.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by onifre, posted 07-30-2010 2:23 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2010 3:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 31766
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 439 of 479 (571400)
07-31-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Straggler
07-31-2010 3:20 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Have you read what I have written?

Both can be wrong, deluded and still be reasonable and logical based on what they see as the evidence.

Reasonable and logical are unrelated to being correct or being deluded.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2010 3:20 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2010 3:38 PM jar has responded

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


Message 440 of 479 (571401)
07-31-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by RAZD
07-31-2010 3:20 PM


Re: opinion vs speculation
RAZD writes:

If one speculates that the sky is green however, the reply that it is blue and that this is the truth, is what needs to be substantiated by evidence (actual lightwaves, range defined as blue, etc), which is possible to do.

Except that it could be those ethereal sky gremlins which are manipulating our measurements and tricking us all into believing that the green sky is actually blue. This possibility is unfalsified - and indeed unfalsifiable.

Given that you have (apparently) proven that we cannot rationally consider any unfalsified conclusion to be improbable we cannot dismiss the potential existence of these tricksy sky gremlins as improbable. We must be entirely agnostic.

Thus you have (apparently) proven that we must be rationally agnostic as to whether the sky actually is blue no matter how much detectable evidence there mat be to suggest that this is the case.

Go figure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 3:20 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 441 of 479 (571402)
07-31-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by jar
07-31-2010 3:30 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
jar writes:

Have you read what I have written?

Very carefully.

jar writes:

Both can be wrong, deluded and still be reasonable and logical based on what they see as the evidence.

I don't remember disagreeing with you on this at any point so far. What makes you think I am disputing this?

jar writes:

Reasonable and logical are unrelated to being correct or being deluded.

OK. I don't see what bearing this has on the questions I asked. Why do you think the questions I asked suggest dispute of this?

jar writes:

Straggler writes:

If someone has an emotional need to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte is it rational and reasonable for them to believe that they actually are Napoleon Bonaparte?

For them, it might well be reasonable and rational. I would need to know what led them to that conclusion.

Primarily they have a feeling of absolute conviction that this is the case. These feelings are indescribably strong, especially when reading historical accounts of Napoleon's life which just feel wholly familiar. In addition they cite some rather vague visions as evidence of this conclusion.

jar writes:

Are they wrong, deluded? Almost certainly.

But wouldn't this also apply to our believer in the existence of Middle Earth hobbits? Or do you think that there is a significant difference between the two examples?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 3:30 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 3:43 PM Straggler has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31766
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 442 of 479 (571403)
07-31-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Straggler
07-31-2010 3:38 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes:

But wouldn't this also apply to our believer in the existence of Middle Earth hobbits? Or do you think that there is a significant difference between the two examples?

HUH?

What did I say the last time you asked that question?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2010 3:38 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2010 7:04 PM jar has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 443 of 479 (571406)
07-31-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by DevilsAdvocate
07-31-2010 8:25 AM


Re: really?
Hi DevilsAdvocate, this is getting long and repetitious.

Logic dictates that the burden of proof lies with the one make a ontologically positive claim aka claim of the existance of something. Not the other way around.

And the person making the positive claim to have evidence or knowledge that they know something.

Again, see Pseudoskepticism and logic where this has been discussed.

Yes, but gravitons are predicted in physics (specifically quantum field theory).

A prediction is not evidence, it is a logical conclusion that needs to be tested to see if it is true or not.

According to you, because we don't know whether they exist of not, we should by default believe that they do not exist.

It appears that you are unwilling to take your own default position.

That is not how science works. We don't just conjure up ideas like gravitons in a vacuum of knowledge and evidence. Concepts such as gravitons are derived or infered based on previous knowledge (A Posteriori). Scientists believe gravitons to exist because of previous knowledge not in spite of it.

But they do not have specific evidence that gravitons exist. Some scientists may have an opinion based on previous experience, but that opinion is not based on evidence that gravitons per se exist.

There are also several experiments currently underway i.e. LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) and VIRGO (Virgo interferometer) that will possibly detect gravitational waves (not invidividual gravitons) in the near future.

And when that time comes, then one can make an informed conclusion whether or not gravitons exist. Until then the default is that we do not know (but we can investigate to see, or wait for more evidence).

Working from a basis of non-existance is not a claim it is a priori knowledge. ...

An opinion that god/s may not exist is not a claim that needs to be substantiated, it is the claim to have special knowledge about the likelihood, or to have absolute knowledge of the truth, that bears the burden of proof. As you agreed in the case of gravitons.

This is the third or fourth time that I have pointed out what needs to be substantiated.

... It is the default position, not a claim. I am not claiming or asserting that God does not exist, I am inferring (deducing) he does not exist until shown otherwise, just like I deduce that teapots don't orbit Jupiter, unicorns don't exist, pigs can't fly, etc, etc ad infinitim. There is a difference.

It's your opinion, based on your worldview, life experiences and biases, it is not a default position.

And it's called special pleading when you do not take the same position on other claims, example gravitons.

Again replace the word god(s) with unicorns, vampires, werewolfs, leprecauns, yeti, the loch ness monster, big foot, or any other mythological creature and see how ludicrous this sounds. Seriously. If we operated science in this way we would be in serious trouble.

The logical fallacy of consequences?


question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a
on empirical decision
valid evidence necessary?
(A) / \
yes no ... but ...
/ | |
decide why make a
based on decide decision
inadequate at this anyway
evidence time? based on
=guess =wait opinion
(B) (C) (D)

Dump all those concepts in (C) and wait to see if evidence turns up. One can be skeptical of their existence, yet open-minded enough to consider that they may be true, but that there is insufficient evidence on which to base an (A) type informed conclusion at this time.

Additionally, one is free to investigate any concept in (C) to see if they can develop more evidence. This would depend on personal opinion, resources and willingness to investigate, of course.

People have scientifically investigated yeti, the loch ness monster, big foot, and aliens, because they have a personal interest in finding the truth of those concepts.

And further, this category also includes all hypothesized scientific phenomena that is currently not validated or invalidated by objective empirical evidence, including gravitons.

This in no way hampers the scientific process.

Enjoy.

NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made.
Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-31-2010 8:25 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-31-2010 8:34 PM RAZD has responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 444 of 479 (571407)
07-31-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by RAZD
07-31-2010 2:56 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
RAZD writes:

So the range of confidence you have is based on your subjective opinion in the concept being true, not on any actual calculation of probabilities.

No, my level of credulity is based on my subjective expectation of the concept being true. The calculation of probabilities still occurs, admittedly in a cursory manner, it is just that my credulity is so high regarding the glass of possibly-water that I am virtually never going to question it.

RAZD writes:

Something previously in your experience is counted as likely, while something not previously in your experience is counted as unlikely - is that a fair statement of your position?

That may also be the case, but no it is not the point of my position here. Something that has occurred many times previously in my experience will likely be considered with great credulity, while something that has not will be considered with less.

RAZD writes:

So someone with different life experiences, say your someone that believes they saw a bigfoot, is entirely rational to have a different subjective perception of the likelihood of the concept being true?

While not exactly my point, I would agree that not only might they measure the probability of the concept being true as higher, but also regard it with more credulity.

RAZD writes:

So do you now (as it appears) agree that 2 is not the same as 3 and that it is not disbelief in the concept? Then we are making progress.

Your utter lack of reading comprehension continues to astound. 1 is not the same as 2. 2 is not the same as 3. 1 is not the same as 3. They are all distinct positions.

HOWEVER, the category of "not 1" includes both 2 *and* 3. This has consistently been my point, and your failure to understand it is trying my patience.

1 is belief in the claim. 2 and 3, not being belief in the claim, are not belief. Depending on your use of the term it may be "disbelief" or not, it is really irrelevant to my point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 2:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 4:17 PM Phage0070 has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 445 of 479 (571410)
07-31-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Phage0070
07-31-2010 4:06 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
Sorry Phage0070,

HOWEVER, the category of "not 1" includes both 2 *and* 3. This has consistently been my point, ...

And the category of "not 2" includes both 1 *and* 3 while the category of "not 3" includes both 2 *and* 3 ...

... and your failure to understand it is trying my patience.

Been there.

But I understand what you are saying, I am just pointing out that you are wrong.

While not exactly my point, I would agree that not only might they measure the probability of the concept being true as higher, but also regard it with more credulity.

Which only proves that such "measures" are purely subjective, and not actual calculations of actual probabilities.

Enjoy.

NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made.
Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Phage0070, posted 07-31-2010 4:06 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Phage0070, posted 07-31-2010 4:21 PM RAZD has responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2115 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 446 of 479 (571411)
07-31-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by RAZD
07-30-2010 11:42 PM


Gravitons versus God
Take the graviton as an example of something that is claimed to exist but for which there is currently no objective empirical evidence that it exists.

Your forgetting a basic tenet of why we think gravitons might exist and therefor it is an invalid and useless analogy. Whether gravitons exist or not is an answer to a specific scientific question not a theology. You could have said the same about any number of sub-atomic particles which we haven't detected and yet we have empirical evidence of sub-atomic particles, therefore it is not a unreasonable supposition that gravitons might exist. If we had empirical evidence that there might be a god, then we would not be unreasonable to suggest that there might be more.

I think a more reasonable analogy would be between god/s and my neighbors invisible pink unicorn. If you could not disprove the existence of that unicorn, what would be the difference between them? Claims that can not be tested and immune to disproof are veridically worthless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2010 11:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:49 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 447 of 479 (571413)
07-31-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by RAZD
07-31-2010 4:17 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
RAZD writes:

And the category of "not 2" includes both 1 *and* 3 while the category of "not 3" includes both 2 *and* 3 ...

Correct.

RAZD writes:

Which only proves that such "measures" are purely subjective, and not actual calculations of actual probabilities.

Sure? We are talking about what people *believe*. If you can point out how that could be anything but subjective I am all ears.

Their method of getting there can be, and in some cases should be, as non-subjective as possible, but their belief or non-belief itself is going to be "subjective".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 4:17 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:29 PM Phage0070 has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 448 of 479 (571442)
07-31-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by Phage0070
07-31-2010 4:21 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
Hi Phage0070,

Sure? We are talking about what people *believe*. If you can point out how that could be anything but subjective I am all ears.

Their method of getting there can be, and in some cases should be, as non-subjective as possible, but their belief or non-belief itself is going to be "subjective".

Then I think we agree. Are we done?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Phage0070, posted 07-31-2010 4:21 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Phage0070, posted 07-31-2010 6:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 449 of 479 (571444)
07-31-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by RAZD
07-31-2010 6:29 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
RAZD writes:

Then I think we agree.

Probably not.

RAZD writes:

Are we done?

I really hope so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:29 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 450 of 479 (571449)
07-31-2010 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by DBlevins
07-31-2010 4:20 PM


Gravitons and galloping god/s versus {this post}
Hi DBlevins

Your forgetting a basic tenet of why we think gravitons might exist and therefor it is an invalid and useless analogy. Whether gravitons exist or not is an answer to a specific scientific question not a theology. You could have said the same about any number of sub-atomic particles which we haven't detected and yet we have empirical evidence of sub-atomic particles, therefore it is not a unreasonable supposition that gravitons might exist. If we had empirical evidence that there might be a god, then we would not be unreasonable to suggest that there might be more.

My forgettery gets better every day, thanks, but this is not the point.

You, in essence, are agreeing with my point that the default position in science is not to believe that things do not exist, but one of investigation into the possibility that they may exist.

I think a more reasonable analogy would be between god/s and my neighbors invisible pink unicorn.

Why? How does trotting out the atheist's pet straw-man demonstrate that the default position in science is that "X does not exist"?

I could also compare it to the statement that "{this post} does not exist" - which is easily falsified by anyone reading {this post}, and demonstrating that when the complete possible evidence set of (this post) is known it is possible to see that it contains a post that falsifies the statement.

Amusingly, that also does not demonstrate that the default position in science would be that {this post} does not exist.

Enjoy.

NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made.
Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : notice


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by DBlevins, posted 07-31-2010 4:20 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-31-2010 8:47 PM RAZD has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019