Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is agnosticism more intellectually honest?
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 95 (630727)
08-27-2011 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Jack
08-27-2011 6:32 AM


Re: Jar is not Humpty Dumpty
Thanks for expressing your belief.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Jack, posted 08-27-2011 6:32 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4491 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


Message 62 of 95 (630745)
08-27-2011 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by IamJoseph
08-27-2011 4:29 AM


Re: scales, evidence and logic, and the question of honesty
Joseph, I think his point was that you do not appear to even realize what Galileo actually did. In the seventeenth century, it was not the flat earth that was an issue, but rather geocentrism.
Analogies are useless unless you have an understanding of the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by IamJoseph, posted 08-27-2011 4:29 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 63 of 95 (630747)
08-27-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
08-26-2011 8:48 PM


Hi, Dr A.
Dr Adequate writes:
So long as one hasn't seen any evidence for anything that one might consider a god, my argument holds.
I disagree: if you don't know what god is, you don't really know what evidence it would leave behind. So, lack of evidence results not just from the non-existence of the evidence, but also from failures to recognize evidence that might be there.
With werewolves and unicorns, it's pretty obvious what evidence would be left behind (perhaps more so for werewolves than for unicorns), so recognition of the evidence is not really a factor.
And, it's a fair point about fairies: I'll retract that part of my argument.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2011 8:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 4:37 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 65 by IamJoseph, posted 08-27-2011 5:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 95 (630753)
08-27-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Blue Jay
08-27-2011 1:13 PM


I disagree: if you don't know what god is, you don't really know what evidence it would leave behind. So, lack of evidence results not just from the non-existence of the evidence, but also from failures to recognize evidence that might be there.
Well, it's still lack of evidence, isn't it? But I'm not sure what sort of thing you have in mind.
If I am unaware that Las Vegas' leading werewolf is called Ronald Q. Shambling, then finding in my front yard a watch with a broken strap and the name Ronald Q. Shambling engraved on the back does not suggest to me that I have been visited by a werewolf. Through my ignorance of werewolves, I have failed to recognize the evidence that is there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Blue Jay, posted 08-27-2011 1:13 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 08-27-2011 5:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2011 6:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 89 by Blue Jay, posted 08-27-2011 10:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 65 of 95 (630754)
08-27-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Blue Jay
08-27-2011 1:13 PM


quote:
I disagree: if you don't know what god is, you don't really know what evidence it would leave behind. So, lack of evidence results not just from the non-existence of the evidence, but also from failures to recognize evidence that might be there.
I fully agree. In fact such proof itself would negate the premise of a greater than the universe 'universe maker'. One must consider what they ask proof of. Its like a virus on the ocean bed demanding proof on its desk. The logical answer is the sound premise when proof is neutralized in both motions; this has been flaunted as a negative cannot be proven, when it is not that at all. In fact, the sound premise says a complex object must have a producer till disproven. A pink zebra appearing in one's bedroom or a car found on Mars cannot be flaunted that way.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Blue Jay, posted 08-27-2011 1:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 66 of 95 (630755)
08-27-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2011 4:37 PM


Best way is to follow the step by step thread in the document which introduced the premise of a universe maker. The protocol of the relevant issues starts with Q1:
Q1. Is the universe you exist in finite?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 4:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 5:28 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 95 (630756)
08-27-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by IamJoseph
08-27-2011 5:19 PM


Q1. Is the universe you exist in finite?
A1: I don't know.
Q2: What does this have to do with anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 08-27-2011 5:19 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by IamJoseph, posted 08-27-2011 5:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 68 of 95 (630759)
08-27-2011 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2011 5:28 PM


quote:
A1: I don't know.
What does the evidence indicate? If the universe is expanding, does it not mean it was not infinite 10 seconds back?
quote:
Q2: What does this have to do with anything?
Apples and oranges apply. Why not cooperate with the thread of questions as a devil's advocate methodology, with the clear premise a curcular arguement is the most wrong path?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 5:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 6:03 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 95 (630760)
08-27-2011 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2011 12:05 AM


Re: scales, evidence and logic, and the question of honesty
Hi Dr Adequate
P.S: The terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" already have meanings. Those aren't them.
Really? You might want to let Dawkins know.
Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism
quote:
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.
Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called gnostic atheism because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
bold for emphasis -- that seems to me to match what I said.
Does the same apply to werewolves? If not, why not?
I presume you are talking about categories and the logic of the positions relative to evidence.
Why wouldn't these categories and logic apply to every line of inquiry into our world\universe? You could make the scale more universal by saying:
  1. Absolute Believer: knows that "X" is true. (logically invalid position without supporting evidence)
  2. Strong Believer: thinks that "X" is true is more likely than not. (logically invalid position without supporting evidence)
  3. Weak Believer: thinks that "X" is true is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  4. Agnostic: thinks that "X" may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
  5. Weak Non-believer: thinks that "X" is false is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  6. Strong Non-believer: thinks that "X" is false is more likely than not. (logically invalid position without supporting evidence)
  7. Absolute Non-believer: knows that "X" is false. (logically invalid position without supporting evidence)
Where "believer" is used in the sense of someone with confidence in the truth of a concept
Believer Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
Or we could use "adherent" or "supporter" if "believer" has too much religious overtone.
Thesaurus.com
quote:
acceptor, adherent, apostle, canonist, convert, devotee, disciple, doctrinaire, dogmatist, follower, freak, orthodox, prophet, proselyte, religionist, religious person, supporter, upholder, zealot
Or perhaps you could suggest a better term to use here.
For instance we could say that "evolutionists" are strong adherents\supporters of the theory of evolution, and that science in general is absolute non-adherents\supporters of falsified theories.
Where would you put werewolves on this concept scale?
RAZD's Concept Scale
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts
    1. No evidence, subjective or objective,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
  2. Low Confidence Concepts
    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known contradictory evidence, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
  3. High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts leads to increased confidence in their being true.
Or should we add a category, where there is evidence that falsifies or invalidates the concept?
    "Negative Confidence Concepts"
    1. Invalidating or falsifying objective evidence exists
    2. Conclusions based on the concept regarding probable reality cannot be 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 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 12:05 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 6:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 95 (630762)
08-27-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
08-27-2011 5:38 PM


Re: scales, evidence and logic, and the question of honesty
bold for emphasis -- that seems to me to match what I said.
And it seems to me not to match what you said.
I presume you are talking about categories and the logic of the positions relative to evidence.
Why wouldn't these categories and logic apply to every line of inquiry into our world\universe?
But in that case you would find it "logically invalid" to be a 6 on your scale (i.e. to believe that "the non-existence of werewolves is more likely than not").
Now if you can't bring yourself to put the chance of werewolves existing as lower than 50%, then do you in fact carry silver to ward off werewolves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2011 5:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2011 6:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 95 (630763)
08-27-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by IamJoseph
08-27-2011 5:38 PM


What does the evidence indicate?
The evidence is inconclusive. That's why I don't know.
If the universe is expanding, does it not mean it was not infinite 10 seconds back?
No, that's not what it means.
Apples and oranges apply. Why not cooperate with the thread of questions as a devil's advocate methodology, with the clear premise a curcular arguement is the most wrong path?
Why not cooperate with me by answering my question?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by IamJoseph, posted 08-27-2011 5:38 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 08-27-2011 6:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 95 (630765)
08-27-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2011 4:37 PM


Ben Franklin test
Hi again Dr. Adequate,
I disagree: if you don't know what god is, you don't really know what evidence it would leave behind. So, lack of evidence results not just from the non-existence of the evidence, but also from failures to recognize evidence that might be there.
Well, it's still lack of evidence, isn't it? But I'm not sure what sort of thing you have in mind.
First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just of a lack of evidence.
Second, consider Ben Franklin flying his kite in the rain, but without a means to test for the presence of electricity: lightening could strike his kite repeatedly, and yet he would not be able to record the presence (or absence) of electricity, instead he would have an absence of evidence (pro or con). It would be rather simplistic to conclude from such a test that electricity was not present in lightening.
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 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 4:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by IamJoseph, posted 08-27-2011 6:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 6:15 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 6:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 73 of 95 (630766)
08-27-2011 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2011 6:03 PM


Then play devil's advocate. What is the universe is deemed absolutely finite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 6:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 6:17 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 74 of 95 (630767)
08-27-2011 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
08-27-2011 6:04 PM


Re: Ben Franklin test
There is evidence.
If the BB is deemed some 14B years away, it means there was no universe 100B years ago. Yes/no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2011 6:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 95 (630768)
08-27-2011 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
08-27-2011 6:04 PM


Re: Ben Franklin test
First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just of a lack of evidence.
So I have heard it said; by people who behave as though they are certain of the non-existence of werewolves.
Second, consider Ben Franklin flying his kite in the rain, but without a means to test for the presence of electricity: lightening could strike his kite repeatedly, and yet he would not be able to record the presence (or absence) of electricity, instead he would have an absence of evidence (pro or con). It would be rather simplistic to conclude from such a test that electricity was not present in lightening.
That's a different kind of question.
For example, since I know that you have a height, but have no information about it, I am agnostic about what that height is; I do not assert that you are not 5'9'' on the basis of the absence of evidence.
On the other hand, I am not similarly agnostic on the question of whether you have a pet unicorn. I believe that you do not. This is because the evidence that I am missing is evidence against a well-established rule.
Now in the case of Franklin's kite, he knew that electricity existed, he knew that everything contains some quantity (possibly zero) of electricity, and so could be agnostic about what that quantity is in the case of lightning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2011 6:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2011 6:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024