The Antecedent Probability Principle, the Proportional Principle & Carl Sagan

Wha?? We know that string theorists exist. Lol.Seriously. I request that you expand on the reasons why you believe the pursuit of string theory is rational. Or we can use general relativity. I think the discussion will tease out some nuances in your definition of rationality.

They accept biblical (and other) miracles based on unevidenced beliefs. That is irrational. The distinction is largely irrelevant as we can't even trust the accounts of the miracles to be accurate. But to take one from the NT at random, the raising of Lazarus either didn't happen or could be explained naturally - pick one, most disbelievers wouldn't care which. We have no evidence for any of it so the only rational position is to be totally skeptical.

What is your definition of miracles? If something happened to me that is out of the ordinary, and I was praying for it, how is that unevidenced? What do you arttibute it to? Luck? Coincidence?You can take my word for it can't you? Just like you did your moms with the iron? Of course, but you trust your mom about the iron right? Maybe not some mom you never met but you do in fact trust somebody. I don't get it. Are you saying no ones ever been brough back to life after they died?

Well as a trivial point, we obviously know string theories exist. What we don't know yet is if they are correct. So it's rational to work further to see if they are. Why stick to those two theories? I'm happy to say that the search for knowledge about our world is always rational and seems self evident - it's on you to say why it isn't.

Seriously? So you think as long as something is being explored it's rational then no matter what is being explored? Then whats the problem you're having with miracles?NoNukes asked why you think exploring string theory is rational. Surley you don't think it's rational just because they are exploring it right? What are your reasons?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

You are of course free to discuss what you will, and to avoid discussing what you wish not to discuss.But it is in fact the case that nothing we are discussing here matters one wit. The question is not irrelevant if we are actually discussing the general principle outlined in your OP.There is no real point in addressing my question re: string theory. It is as hypothetical as is the child/hot iron/electrical socket example.

No, I don't think that at all.For example, I don't think that the search for the ark on Mount Arafat is rational because we have no evidence that the ark ever existed and huge quantities of evidence that says it doesn't.But to be consistent, I would say that if an irrational person ever searched for the ark and found what could be its remains, it would be vaguely rational to properly test it because there would then be some evidence worth testing.I think that reasearching String Theory is rational because there's a logic basis for the investigation. I answer that in the origianl post.

Then perhaps you could explain what point you are trying to make, because I'm completely missing it at the moment. Obviously.

And what do you think is that logical basis?In any event, it seems to me that if you are not prepared to say that the reason for researching String Theory is based on evidence, then you are not being consistent with the approach described in your OP.Edited by NoNukes, : remove an extra negation...

er, I AM saying that it's rational to research string theory and any other evidenced based subject.That's all I've ever said, so I'm still confused as to what YOU are saying.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

This whole statement is fraught with issues.
Define died.
Give an example of someone that was brought back to life after an extended period. Lets compare them with the Lazarus story.I know of no one brought back from what I would consider death.

I'm saying that general relativity was not evidence based prior to about 1915, and that Einstein's pursuit of it beginning in about 1907 or so was not triggered by evidence. It is the case that we currently have lots of experimental verification now.I'm saying that string theory is currently a mathematical, unevidenced pursuit. The term "theory" in the expression may very well turn out to be mere euphemism. String theory may very well turn out to be utterly untestable.

Yeah, and that's the problem. What current evidence is there for string theory? About the same as miracles? Yet you say it's rational to explore string theory, why?

I know nothing about string theory and less about the historicity of Einsten's work but I do know that both Einstein and the guys working on string theory were/are trying to solve a problem in physics that exists or existed. They use mathematical tools and knowledge that pre-existed to create models of our world which can be tested by others.In modern times the string theory guys need to provide evidence to the funders that pay their salaries that their work is worth continuing and may provide more information about our world. It's a rational process.

I have no idea what evidence there is for string theory, luckily if you need to know the answer, you can check the wiki on it. But do you doubt that the process being used to build the theory is rational? Do you think that it's likely that the models, mathematics and physics that they use to establish it lack evidence? Or that the problems they are trying to solve are real?Now apply the same tests to miracles.