Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,578 Year: 2,835/9,624 Month: 680/1,588 Week: 86/229 Day: 58/28 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 536 (604422)
02-11-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by slevesque
02-11-2011 1:48 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Consider the case when we infer from abundant forensic evidence that John Smith murdered Fred Jones.
This is certainly inductive, and it is certainly not a repeatable event, since even if Smith was willing to repeat the slaying of Jones, Jones would not be able.
Now the conclusion that Smith murdered Jones either is scientific or it is not. If you say that it is, then you must give up your very narrow concept of repeatability as the hallmark of science; but if you say that it isn't, then you must give up the idea that induction should only be applied to scientific questions. Either way, your argument fails.
(In principle, there is a third option, which is that you should stick to your guns and say that no amount of evidence is sufficient to convict a man of murder unless his victim can be brought back to life and murdered again; this would be consistent with the views that you have so far expressed and avoid my dilemma, but I assume that you are not going to take this way out.)
---
Myself, I think you are wrong about the issue of repeatability. For example, you object in a subsequent post that even if someone was willing and able to walk on water whenever he was asked, this would still not fulfill the criterion of repeatability, which, you say, would require that anyone could do it at will.
But by that criterion it would be unscientific for me to believe that some people can slam-dunk a basketball, on the grounds that I cannot do it myself. This would be a strange conclusion, and stranger still because the default position of science is a universal negative --- so that it would then, consequently, be scientific to assert that it is not possible to slam-dunk, no matter how often I observed evidence to the contrary!
---
As to methodological naturalism, I think that this is a principle that can be taken too far. We must certainly not frame our epistemology so that it would a priori exclude us from coming to some conclusion even if that conclusion was both true and well-evidenced.
Now it is true that if we wish to scientifically investigate how someone walks on water, we must assume that he is doing so by natural means, and that it is in some way a trick. There is no scientific method for investigating the mechanism of something that is actually a miracle. But this should not, I think, preclude us from provisionally accepting, given a sufficient weight of evidence, that it is in fact a miracle and that trying to find a mechanism is futile.
We should require strong evidence to come to such a conclusion --- what I say certainly does not legitimize God-of-the-Gaps style thinking. We cannot say: "I don't understand it, so God did it"; but in a case such as I have described, we do understand hydrodynamics, and we know that the man ought to sink. To ascribe supernatural powers to him would be an argument from knowledge and not ignorance.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by slevesque, posted 02-11-2011 1:48 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by xongsmith, posted 02-14-2011 1:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 536 (604483)
02-12-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
02-12-2011 4:12 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Well, it is evidentiary. How much weight we should give to it is another question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 4:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 536 (604517)
02-12-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Straggler
02-12-2011 4:45 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
It is evidence of belief. Sure.
To cite it as anything else is to engage in the circular argument of citing belief itself as evidence upon which to base beliefs.
No, of citing testimony. How much such testimony sways us may depend on our antecedent beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 02-12-2011 4:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 4:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 536 (604559)
02-13-2011 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Straggler
02-13-2011 4:37 AM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
People can testify to having experiences certainly. But what are these expereinces evidence of exactly?
Why would we think that such experiences constitute evidence for supernatural causes rather than evidence for fluctuations in the matrix?
But if you are going to go down that route, then your doubt seems just as applicable to causes which people tend to deem natural. You see a guy eating a hamburger --- or do you? Perhaps it's just a "fluctuation in the Matrix". I don't see how this would be different in principle from seeing him walking on water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 4:37 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 5:43 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 536 (604563)
02-13-2011 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Straggler
02-13-2011 5:43 AM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
I took "supernatural experience" to mean something more concrete and objective than perhaps RAZD and CS meant, in which case we have been talking at cross purposes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2011 5:43 AM Straggler has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 536 (604764)
02-14-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by xongsmith
02-14-2011 1:56 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
The forensic processes are repeatable. The fingerprints can be examined by others.
I know that. Slevesque seems to be saying that the event itself needs to be repeatable ... and by everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by xongsmith, posted 02-14-2011 1:56 PM xongsmith 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