Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 106 of 479 (566497)
06-24-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
06-24-2010 11:06 PM


Re: false beliefs - do they add up to false religion?
RAZD writes:
Or is it just a poor argument from consequences?
It is neither; it is simply an observation.
RAZD writes:
Poisoning the Well fallacy?
Someone who misunderstands logic is likely to make illogical arguments; having made an illogical argument the proper response is to point out the logical error, not trundle on as though it has to be addressed in another fashion.
RAZD writes:
Those elements are not enough to say that you must consider the conclusion true, certainly, but they are also not anywhere near enough to tentatively or otherwise consider the conclusion false either.
Amusingly, therefore, if someone wants to believe in the IPU, this shows that such a belief is not unreasonable.
You just said it in the first paragraph, and then completely ignore it in the second.
Those elements are not enough that we must consider the conclusion true, and they are not enough that we must consider the conclusion false. They are not enough to show that such a belief is unreasonable either. HOWEVER, the belief may actually be unreasonable and be proved unreasonable by another method, or other data not part of the argument presented.
So no, it is not true that if someone wants to believe in the IPU such a belief is not unreasonable. The inability of the particular argument we are considering to prove something unreasonable doesn't mean it cannot be proved unreasonable! That is a basic fallacy of Composition.
RAZD writes:
Curiously, I am not the one that posted a self contradicting opinion about the validity of belief.
You already quoted that line, double quoting is unnecessary considering I wrote it. I am not *that* narcissistic. It would also help if you pointed out a contradiction somewhere in your claim.
RAZD writes:
And interestingly, just because arguments with untrue premises can be valid, does not mean that that arguments with premises that have not been invalidated cannot be valid.
In the terminology of logic, I can't figure out what you mean by invalidating premises. I am going to assume you mean proving premises untrue.
In that case, yes, the truth of the premises has no bearing on the validity of the argument. That was my point in the first place; the mere fact that the premises have not been proved false does not mean we can consider the argument valid. The soundness of the argument though, does depend on the premises being true. Simply pointing out that the premises have not been proved false does not establish them as being true either.
RAZD writes:
... and the definition provided in Message 103 shows that a conclusion is valid if (a) the form is properly constructed and (b) if the premises, taken as true in the argument, lead to the conclusion.
This does not mean (I repeat) that the conclusion is proven , just that it is valid.
A logically valid argument is one that may be (tentatively considered) true if the premises are not known to be false.
Again, a thousand times no! A logically valid argument is true if the premises are known to be true! If you don't know that, if you are unsure of the truth of the premises, the argument is simply valid with premises of unknown truth.
It is not reasonable to consider something true, tentatively or otherwise, simply because an argument based on facts that may or may not even exist can be made for that something. Such an approach would result in literally *anything* being tentatively considered true.
Of course this reductio ad absurdum depends on you recognizing such a state of affairs as absurd.
RAZD writes:
Again, YOU consider this statement true even though you have no evidence to prove it, it is just your opinion.
My IPU example proves that such a leap is unreasonable. You have yet to address it.
RAZD writes:
Now do you want to continue with the topic, or continue to wallow in mud slinging?
This is how discussions work; you have presented an argument, and I pointed out a flaw. If you don't want to address it that is your prerogative, but discussion of arguments on the topic is the entire purpose of a discussion board.
Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2010 11:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 8:04 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 06-25-2010 12:20 PM Phage0070 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 479 (566535)
06-25-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Phage0070
06-24-2010 11:47 PM


Re: false beliefs - do they add up to false religion?
So you wallow in mud, ah well Phage0070, that's your choice.
We can go on and on, and you will continue to choose to misunderstand, because you have your opinions that you think are true, even though your "test" for reasonable arguments invalidates itself.
You just said it in the first paragraph, and then completely ignore it in the second.
"May" is not "must" -- please read.
Now let's see if you can focus on the topic rather than attack the messenger.
Do you or do you not agree that holding false beliefs means that a religion is questionable at best?
Is this or is this not a valid test for determining whether a specific religion may be false.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... 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 106 by Phage0070, posted 06-24-2010 11:47 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 06-25-2010 9:40 AM RAZD has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 108 of 479 (566552)
06-25-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
06-24-2010 9:16 PM


Re: false beliefs - do they add up to false religion?
RAZD writes:
Perhaps you can pay more attention to my position than bluegenes has ...
I paid very good attention to the sentence that I quoted. Here's my post again.
bluegenes writes:
RAZD writes:
The earth is very old - any belief that the world is not very old is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
That's a very odd statement coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth.
That's the only comment I've made on this thread.
Now, are you paying attention?
Are you disagreeing with the point that your statement would be very odd coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth?
If not, in what way am I not paying attention? I've addressed no points that you've made here. I merely stated a fact which no rational person could disagree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2010 9:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 7:47 PM bluegenes has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 109 of 479 (566553)
06-25-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
06-25-2010 8:04 AM


It is untrue that beliefs that have not been shown to be false are not true
We can go on and on, and you will continue to choose to misunderstand, because you have your opinions that you think are true, even though your "test" for reasonable arguments invalidates itself.
The strange thing is that the two of you are agreeing vociferously past each other.
You both agree that a logical argument can be invalid and true or valid and false.
The question seems to be regarding the nature of 'valid' in the context of belief.
Phage seems to be saying that 'that an idea has not been falsified is not a valid reason to believe that the idea is true'.
You seem to be saying 'that an idea has not been falsified means the belief is valid'.
Could you explain what you mean by 'valid belief'? Unless you were making the trivial point that 'a belief that is not falsified is not falsified' - I can't make sense out of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 8:04 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 8:51 PM Modulous has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 110 of 479 (566574)
06-25-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Phage0070
06-24-2010 11:47 PM


Re: false beliefs - do they add up to false religion?
This argument with RAZD can continue forever. Beware the fate of Straggler, who beat his head on this wall for a very, very long time.
RAZD makes a fundamental mistake regarding rationality, and doesn;t see it as in error at all. He thinks that "logically valid" means "rational to believe" so long as it hasn't ben absolutely falsified, but you and I know this isn't the case - else any logically consistent but completely baseless claim is counted as "rational" to believe in, and it holds a very special weakness for unfalsifiable nonsense.
The key, I think, is that RAZD is forgetting (or purposefully ignoring) the fact that "I believe x to be true" is a shortened way of saying "I estimate the probability that hypothesis x is accurate to be sufficiently high that I consider it to be likely."
RAZD isn't even performing a rational analysis of the probability that his pet hypothesis is accurate - he makes perfectly clear that he holds his beliefs primarily because they are personally preferable to him, and he considers this to be perfectly rational because his beliefs have not been falsified (easy to do when you refuse to even define those beliefs).
It's silly.
Rational decisions of what to believe and what not to believe involve an analysis of the probability that the hypothesis is accurate given various observations.
Of course, this first requires a cohesive hypothesis - and RAZD won;t ever provide that. He'll never define his deity in terms that could be used to make any prediction, ever - his beliefs are so general that they encompass all possible observations, and so they convey no knowledge.
But even examining the probability that the hypothesis "deity x exists given the very few observations we can make, we see that RAZD's belief is nothing more than an unfounded subjective increase in his personal estimation that his hypothesis is accurate simply because he likes the idea - a perfect example of irrationality.
Let's look at the probability that deity x exists given the observation that RAZD finds that hypothesis to be personally preferable.
P(H|D)=P(D|H)*P(H)/P(D)
The probability that RAZD would be emotionally satisfied given the veracity of his hypothesis is likely 100%. The prior probability that deity x exists before observing that RAZD finds it personally satisfying is extremely low - one deity in an infinite set of mutually exclusive deities. The probability that RAZD would find the hypothesis preferable regardless of whether the hypothesis is accurate is also likely 100%.
Would you look at that - both P(H|H) and P(D) are 1...meaning P(H|D) = P(H), or one chance in an infinite set. Our prior probability has not changed at all by observing that RAZD finds the hypothesis to be personally satisfying. Would you say that a single chance in an infinite set has a high probability of being accurate, and thus is worth saying you believe the hypothesis to be true? What if I simply used the number of currently extant religions rather than infinity - then we'd have something on the order of some thousands rather than an infinite set. Would you judge a 1/1000 chance to be "likely?" I certainly wouldn't.
What about the observation that lots of people believe in deities? Given observed human nature and our tendency to believe outrageous claims even when they're false (given that most religions are mutually exclusive, the vast majority must be false even if one is really true; see also cults, Scientology, etc), wouldn't we expect with nearly 100% certainty that "lots of people" would believe in gods even if the hypothesis that gods exist is false? Once again, our prior estimation of probability is unchanged because both the probability that people would believe in gods if they do exist and the probability that people would believe in gods regardless of whether they exist are 100%.
What observation possibly leads RAZD to increase the probability that his hypothesis is correct to a sufficient level to even consider that it might be accurate?
Let's make another analogy, without any unicorns, because RAZD seems to have an allergy, especially to the invisible and immaterial varieties.
Imagine that we have a city with a population in the millions. Each person represents an individual "god concept." Many people, the vast majority of the city, believe that there has been a murder. The killer and the victim represent various sets of beliefs, including both organized and personal religions. There's no body, nobody knows who the victim is, there's no weapon, and while there are signs of struggles in various parts of the city including blood, there's nothing that ties them all together or even points to one as a murder scene.
Some people in the city have read various newspapers which each claim a different victim and murderer. They believe they have identified both simply because they read it in the paper. They find that this satisfies their curiosity, and after all, the newspaper says that it prints the truth, so why shouldn't they believe it?
RAZD thinks he knows the identity of the victim and the killer...but he won't tell any of us who it is, or why he thinks so. All he'll say is that his hypothesis hasn't been falsified and it's logically self-consistent, and he's chosen to believe it over other unfalsified and logically self-consistent possible victims and murderers because he really didn't like either the victim or the killer (perhaps he owed the victim money and the killer was a real asshole anyway), and so he finds his hypothesis to be very emotionally satisfying.
Personally, I don't think there was a murder, because there's no body, no murder weapon, no confession, no signs of a struggle that aren't easily and better explained by other hypotheses (some kids got in a fight, but everybody's fine, etc).
Is it rational in these circumstances to believe that any hypothesis including a victim and a killer are likely to be true? Is it rational to believe that a murder ever happened at all?
After all, if we define "valid" as "logically consistent and not falsified," then RAZD's hypothesis is completely valid...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Phage0070, posted 06-24-2010 11:47 PM Phage0070 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 111 of 479 (566678)
06-25-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by bluegenes
06-25-2010 9:36 AM


failed old arguments are still failed old arguments
Hi bluegenes
Are you disagreeing with the point that your statement would be very odd coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth?
Which just goes to show that you didn't pay attention to the previous argument that you dredged this up from. It was fairly evident to me that you seemed unable\unwilling to understand the concept involved because it ran counter to your pet beliefs\worldview.
It is fascinating to see the behavior of people that run into cognitive dissonance.
The topic on this thread is Identifying false religions .
Now, my first post on this topic presented a relatively simple concept for testing when a religion may be false - or at least suspect - when it holds one or more beliefs that have been falsified by science.
Curiously, the fact that these beliefs have been falsified by science has absolutely nothing to do with my personal beliefs one way or the other.
Amazingly, it seems that people would rather revive their old failed arguments with me than discuss the topic. Sad.
Do you want to discuss the topic?
Do you agree that any belief that is falsified makes the religion that depends on such a belief suspect?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : one or more

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... 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 108 by bluegenes, posted 06-25-2010 9:36 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by bluegenes, posted 06-25-2010 8:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 113 by bluegenes, posted 06-25-2010 8:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 112 of 479 (566681)
06-25-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
06-25-2010 7:47 PM


Re: failed old arguments are still failed old arguments
Once again:
bluegenes writes:
Are you disagreeing with the point that your statement [that the earth is definitely very old] would be very odd coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth?
It's easy to type "yes" or "no".
RAZD writes:
It is fascinating to see the behavior of people that run into cognitive dissonance.
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 7:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 113 of 479 (566683)
06-25-2010 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
06-25-2010 7:47 PM


Suspect?
RAZD writes:
Do you agree that any belief that is falsified makes the religion that depends on such a belief suspect?
All religions are "suspect".
If one contained a falsified belief on top of that, I'd use words like "ludicrous" or "ridiculous", rather than merely suspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 7:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 114 of 479 (566684)
06-25-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Modulous
06-25-2010 9:40 AM


Rule out falsified beliefs first
Hi Modulus, nice to see you again.
The strange thing is that the two of you are agreeing vociferously past each other.
Agreed, and I have tried to point this out.
You seem to be saying 'that an idea has not been falsified means the belief is valid'.
As was established on several other threads,
  • when there is no invalidating evidence then there is a possibility that a concept may be true, and
  • when there is no validating evidence then there is the possibility that a concept may be false:
  • either position is rational (not contradicted by evidence), and
  • what you decide to believe about the concept being true or false is based on your personal worldview and opinions, not on facts (for you don't have any).
You may believe the concept is true, you may believe it is false, or you may believe that you do not need to decide at this time (and wait for further evidence). Whichever way you go, however, it is a belief based on personal opinion.
Could you explain what you mean by 'valid belief'?
Interestingly, this thread is not about identifying true religions, but false ones.
Therefore the emphasis should be on what are invalid beliefs, and how they affect religions that incorporate them in various degrees.
The point I made in the original post here:
quote:
What steps would you take to identify a false religion?
I would start with false beliefs.
The world is not flat - any belief that the world is flat is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
The world is not the center of the universe - any belief that the world is center of the universe is countered by evidence that shows that the earth orbits the sun, and the sun orbits the center of this galaxy, and the galaxy is moving in space, showing that this is a false belief.
The earth is very old - any belief that the world is not very old is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
The universe is even older - any belief that the universe is not extremely old is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
There has not been one universal world wide flood - any belief that there was a world wide flood is falsified by evidence that demonstrates that it is a false belief.
That is just some examples of false beliefs.
Now, do you agree that any religion that depends on one or more false beliefs, beliefs that have been invalidated by contradictory evidence, is suspect at best, or false itself at worse (to the degree it is based on false beliefs)?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... 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 109 by Modulous, posted 06-25-2010 9:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Modulous, posted 06-25-2010 10:24 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 116 by bluegenes, posted 06-26-2010 6:03 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 115 of 479 (566692)
06-25-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
06-25-2010 8:51 PM


Re: Rule out falsified beliefs first
Could you explain what you mean by 'valid belief'?
Interestingly, this thread is not about identifying true religions, but false ones.
Therefore the emphasis should be on what are invalid beliefs, and how they affect religions that incorporate them in various degrees.
I understand what the topic is, but I though would have more to contribute than 'we can identify false religions by finding religions which rely on empirically falsified notions' - but it seems not. But you suggest that where there is support for or against the notion, then either believing it or not are both rational? What do you mean by 'rational' here? Merely 'not falsified'?
Now, do you agree that any religion that depends on one or more false beliefs, beliefs that have been invalidated by contradictory evidence, is suspect at best, or false itself at worse (to the degree it is based on false beliefs)?
Well, yes, trivially.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 8:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2010 9:53 PM Modulous has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 116 of 479 (566714)
06-26-2010 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
06-25-2010 8:51 PM


Falsifiable?
Mr. X believes that his god created a universe with a flat planet earth at the centre of it 6,000 years ago.
He believes that Satan rules the minds of unbelievers, and that all appearances that contradict his cosmology are illusions contrived by Satan to lead men away from god.
Falsify his beliefs, bearing in mind your claims:
RAZD writes:
I would start with false beliefs.
The world is not flat - any belief that the world is flat is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
The world is not the center of the universe - any belief that the world is center of the universe is countered by evidence that shows that the earth orbits the sun, and the sun orbits the center of this galaxy, and the galaxy is moving in space, showing that this is a false belief.
The earth is very old - any belief that the world is not very old is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
The universe is even older - any belief that the universe is not extremely old is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 8:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 479 (566813)
06-27-2010 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Modulous
06-25-2010 10:24 PM


Rule out falsified beliefs first - what's next?
Hi Modulus
I understand what the topic is, but I though would have more to contribute than 'we can identify false religions by finding religions which rely on empirically falsified notions' - but it seems not.
Well, yes, trivially.
So we have a starting point. Mind you, this holds for any belief set on any philosophical topic that is outside the realms of science (and scientific testability) - presuming that we start there (having accepted the validity of scientific knowledge that is based on evidence and testing and validation).
This does not tell you what {belief/s|notion/s|religion/s|philosophies} may be true, only ones that are suspect at best, or false at worse (to the degree they are based on false beliefs).
But you suggest that where there is support for or against the notion, then either believing it or not are both rational? What do you mean by 'rational' here? Merely 'not falsified'?
Did you miss a negative? Where there is no evidence for, nor against, a notion, then we don't know, we can't know, we don't have enough information to know. One can have an opinion about whether the notion is true or false, and as long as one recognizes that it is opinion based on belief\worldview, and not a conclusion based on fact, that is okay with me.
Logically, it seems to me, it is equally rational to think that X may be tentatively considered to possibly be true, as it is to think that X may be tentatively considered to possibly be false, due to the lack of evidence on which to base a logical decision: all you have either way is opinion based on belief\worldview.
The truly rational position, of course is that we don't know, we can't know because we don't have enough information to know, and therefore cannot decide the truth or falseness of the notion/s ... and thus any decision made must necessarily be opinion, and must be held as a tentative possibility at best.
... assuming, of course, that the {belief/s|notion/s|etc} form a logically valid and consistent argument.
This would bring us to a second test for false religions: inherent logical contradictions, and logical fallacies within a specific belief should also render that specific belief suspect at best, or false at worse, and likewise any religion that depends on one or more logically invalid beliefs, beliefs that have been invalidated by self contradiction or that are logical fallacies, is suspect at best, or false itself at worse (to the degree it is based on false beliefs).
Is this a good second test?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... 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 115 by Modulous, posted 06-25-2010 10:24 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2010 8:32 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 411 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2010 9:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 118 of 479 (566956)
06-28-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
06-27-2010 9:53 PM


Re: Rule out falsified beliefs first - what's next?
The old unfalsifiability trick again huh.
Logically, it seems to me, it is equally rational to think that X may be tentatively considered to possibly be true, as it is to think that X may be tentatively considered to possibly be false, due to the lack of evidence on which to base a logical decision: all you have either way is opinion based on belief\worldview.
If there is a wealth of objective evidence in favour of a competing theory then it is quite obviously rational to give that explanation more credence than an unevidenced explanation. No matter how unfalsifiable the unevidenced explanation may be. Do you actually disagree with this?
Failure to acknowledge this fact will leave you in your usual position of being confronted with a collection of questions regarding the unfalsifiable concepts that you loathe so much but have no actual answers to. Is it rational to give undetectable gravity gnomes equal billing as an explanation for gravitational effects as space-time curvature? Is it really sensible to state our undying agnosticism to the idea that Immaterial Pink Unicorns are magically manipulating E-coli experiments to trick us into believing bacteria can evolve? Can we falsify these possibilities? How much evidence do we need in favour of an alternative before we can legitimately conclude that the unevidenced but unfalsifiable possibility is probably wrong?
The truly rational position, of course is that we don't know, we can't know because we don't have enough information to know, and therefore cannot decide the truth or falseness of the notion/s ... and thus any decision made must necessarily be opinion, and must be held as a tentative possibility at best.
Why must it be purely opinion? Why can conclusions that lack absolute certainty not be evidence based? In fact is that not the norm? Are not all evidence based conclusions necessarily made on the basis of incomplete evidence and thus tenative to some degree anyway?
Bertrand Russel writes:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2010 9:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2010 7:05 AM Straggler has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 119 of 479 (566999)
06-29-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Straggler
06-28-2010 8:32 PM


Another opportunity?
Ah Straggler, right on cue.
If there is a wealth of objective evidence in favour of a competing theory then it is quite obviously rational to give that explanation more credence than an unevidenced explanation. No matter how unfalsifiable the unevidenced explanation may be. Do you actually disagree with this?
Same old same old same old message. And if there is no evidence?
Failure to acknowledge this fact will leave you in your usual position of being confronted with a collection of questions regarding the unfalsifiable concepts that you loathe so much but have no actual answers to.
Which I have already answered, and it still appears that you can't accept the answer: amusingly you even quote it here:
quote:
The truly rational position, of course is that we don't know, we can't know because we don't have enough information to know, and therefore cannot decide the truth or falseness of the notion/s ... and thus any decision made must necessarily be opinion, and must be held as a tentative possibility at best.
Why must it be purely opinion? Why can conclusions that lack absolute certainty not be evidence based? In fact is that not the norm? Are not all evidence based conclusions necessarily made on the basis of incomplete evidence and thus tenative to some degree anyway?
Because we start with the fact\precept that there is no evidence one way or the other in this specific case. Without evidence it cannot be "evidence based" no matter what you think about it.
That means that any decision you make must be opinion. You have yours. Curiously we all know that opinion is not able to affect reality in any way, and thus - logically, rationally - one should never pretend that their opinion is actually true, ... but with an absence of contradictory evidence, it is rational (but not strictly logical) to tentatively conclude the possibility of truth. This is what you do with your examples of "undetectable gravity gnomes" and other examples: you form an opinion, and you act on that opinion.
Now, interestingly, the topic on this thread is "how to identify false religions" and it would appear that this should be right up your alley.
Perhaps you can show how your system identifies false religions?
Or why belief in the IPU would be a false belief?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... 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 118 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2010 8:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 7:21 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 121 by Rahvin, posted 06-29-2010 11:38 AM RAZD has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 120 of 479 (567001)
06-29-2010 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
06-29-2010 7:05 AM


Re: Another opportunity?
Ah Straggler, right on cue.
I could say the same about you and your position on falsification. I guess we are both just keen to exchange pleasantries yet again.
And if there is no evidence?
As we have both previously agreed there never ever is an absolute vacuum of all evidence. All claims are made in the objectively evidenced arena of human history, psychology and culture. Ignore that at your peril.
Perhaps you can show how your system identifies false religions?
Well let's take an example of an actual religion that we might even be able to agree on. Scientology. Thetans as far as I understand the concept are unfalsifiable. Many would claim that they are designed to be unfalsifiable. Where exactly do you stand on Thetans?
Probably a human invention? Complete Agnosticism with any doubt on your part being nothing more than personal bias and worldview? Are you maybe even a believer?
Where do you stand on Thetans RAZ?
Or why belief in the IPU would be a false belief?
False? Are you arguing in black and white terms of logical certitude again? How about almost certainly a human invention based on the evidence available? That would be my basic answer.
As it is to Santa and the Easter Bunny and all those other unfalsifiable entities that you so hate me mentioning whenever you fly off on your falsification by numbers routine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2010 7:05 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024