EvC Forum: The Nature of Scepticism

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: The Nature of Scepticism

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 112 of 271 (691848)
02-25-2013 4:20 PM

Reply to: Message 107 by Straggler
02-25-2013 4:41 AM

so back to the topic

I am not going to risk brain damage to my children just to stubbornly insist on being right on an internet debate forum.

If your form of skepticism results in the conclusion that brain damage caused by the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic possibility then, for the sake of my children's brains, I beseech you to tell me this and explain how you have arrived at that position. I can assure you that you will never have a more attentive student. My children's brains are at stake here.

Does your form of skepticism require that brain damage caused by the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants be considered a realistic possibility? I need to know. My children's brains are at stake here and that is no laughing matter.

Still with the word games ... kind of like asking if 2+2=5 in an alternate universe ... pointless mental masturbation imho.

So there is no given way to assess whether there really is a risk or not, with the information you have provided - until some actual brain damage is manifested. One could look at brain damaged children in the area and then try to devise some kind of test (time in and proximity to your garden?) but I skeptically doubt that any kind of valid test could be devised given your parameters that would lead to informed results.

Thus I am not convinced that there is a risk at this time.

It's convuluted and I certainly wouldn't word it like that but broadly speaking I wouldn't object to this stance being taken to a question such as "Does the beef lasagne in my freezer contain horse meat?" Given recent events it's a perfectly well founded possibility that the lasagne in my freezer contains horse meat but I just don't have enough information to know whether it actually does or not. I genuinely don't know. I am agnostic. (And on that agnostic basis if I wanted to avoid eating horse I would not eat that lasagne in case it does contain horse meat)

Well, I wouldn't adopt it dogmatically, but it seems a fairly evenhanded approach to skepticism.

Curiously, I've had horse meat and thought it had nice flavor, so I would not be bothered by this issue myself. Different people have different feelings, however, so I can understand how some may be squeamish about horse, dog or cat meat. Thus I don't see any need to make a decision on this issue -- either way the lasagna should provide a good meal (and possibly less likely to give you Creutzfeldt—Jakob disease -- a reason that I don't eat beef anymore. This is not a very likely risk of brain damage, but one I just don't want to take, given that there are other options).

But is this a valid stance to take with regard to a proposition for which (to quote Russel from the OP) "there is no ground whatever for supposing it true"?

Such as whether 2+2=5?

Should a justifiably skeptical approach result in different conclusions when considering grounded and ungrounded propositions?

What do you mean by grounded?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : )

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 107 by Straggler, posted 02-25-2013 4:41 AM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 113 by Straggler, posted 02-25-2013 4:56 PM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 114 of 271 (691864)
02-25-2013 8:58 PM

Reply to: Message 92 by Straggler
02-23-2013 9:24 AM

not convinced

Unless you have changed your position such that you now consider ethereal elephants to be a realistic possibility I maintain that there is no real difference between us in terms of the level of credence given to this particular proposition.

Message 112: So there is no given way to assess whether there really is a risk or not, with the information you have provided - until some actual brain damage is manifested. One could look at brain damaged children in the area and then try to devise some kind of test (time in and proximity to your garden?) but I skeptically doubt that any kind of valid test could be devised given your parameters that would lead to informed results.

Thus I am not convinced that there is a risk at this time.

And I remain unconvinced that there is a determinable risk at this time. If brain damage begins to be manifest, however, then this would change the equation and I would be open-minded towards revisiting the issue.

Unless you have changed your position such that you now treat your favoured ideas as skeptically as you treat ethereal elephants it is indisputable that your approach is inconsistent.

I am not convinced that my personal beliefs\opinions (political, spiritual, etc) are absolutely true (and I've told you this before), nor am I convinced that they present any risk to myself or others.

I am not convinced that democratic socialism is absolutely better than corporate fascism, though I like to think so, ... but what do you measure to determine "better" -- subjective happiness?

I am not convinced that removing assault type guns from American hands will eliminate school massacres, but I like to think it will reduce mass death numbers, and I personally don't see a down side to doing it.

I am not convinced that aliens have visited this planet, though I like to think so. I am perfectly willing to let people spend time and money researching this issue if they want to, and I will be happy to read their results.

I am not convinced that sasquatch exists, though I like to think so. I am perfectly willing to let people spend time and money researching this issue if they want to, and I will be happy to read their results.

( ... Could sasquatch sightings actually be of aliens in "gilly" suits? I don't know ... but it amuses me to think so ...

)

This is the area of opinions, rather than conjectures that can be verified at this time.

This is the area where world views are more dominated by opinions\biases\beliefs than by conclusions based on evidence ... which gets back to the issue of what is reality.

Do you have a sports team that you "favor" over other sports teams? Music group? Artist? Why?

I can assure you that I have never physically uttered those words in my garden or indeed anywhere else.

LOL. This is your metaphysical garden, posts in this and other threads in this and other forums; its where you plant seeds of debate that grow into good arguments or die.

But if I have put forward that specific scenario here once or twice it is only because I find the notion of ethereal elephants subjectively appealing. I would quite like it if such things did exist (minus the brain damage thing). I could have talked about immaterial iguanas, spectral squirrels, incorporeal antelopes, your favoured idea, the ideas favoured by various established religions or indeed any other such unknowable entities. In each case the same approach would be taken to reach the same conclusion.

You should read The Unicorn in the Garden by James Thurber -- I think you would enjoy it.

When I use the term agnostic I use it to describe a state of being unable to decide whether a possibility which has grounds as realistic is actually true or not. So - For example - I am agnostic as to whether I have ever eaten horse when I thought I was eating beef. Given recent events it's a perfectly well founded possibility. But I just don't have enough information to know whether I actually have eaten horse in beef products or not. I genuinely don't know.

Now if I was genuinely agnostic about a cause of brain damage to my children, if I honestly didn't know whether they were being brain damaged or not, I would take preventative action just in case. The reason I haven't taken any action with regard to brain-damaging-ethereal-elephants is because I am not agnostic towards this proposition beyond the trivial agnosticism of lacking philosophical certainty. I don't believe that brain damage from ethereal elephants is a realistic possibility and I would describe this stance as atheistic.

I think your over-exuberant use of the term "agnostic", applying it both to things you really do believe in and things you really don't (e.g. ethereal elephants), is the result of you trying to mask the inconsistency of your approach to favoured and non-favoured ideas.

And yet I really do not have sufficient information to enable me to decide (your definition), and I remain unconvinced (my definition) as a result.

Nor do I feel that a decision is necessary (original version):

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)

Now if you really feel that a decision is necessary, then you end up at (B) and make a guess based on your worldview opinions\biases\etc rather than on verifiable objective evidence.

For example, from Message 112 again:

So I go to (B) and make a decision\guess based on my worldview opinions\biases\etc rather than on verifiable objective evidence, and decide not to eat any more beef.

If I said I was ignostic about brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants I would be lying. Because I have considered the possibility and decided that there is no realistic danger of brain damage occurring.

So you could say that you went to (B) rather than (D) ... that you felt you needed to make a decision, and then decided there was no realistic risk due to your personal world view. But it's still a guess rather than an evidence based decision, yes?

I haven't laid out any precepts and I have yet to even mention objective empirical evidence in this thread.

Ah, you are posting quotes that are not your argument, I understand.

Oh but wait, you give your beliefs a free ride here because you aren't skeptical of your position.

Actually I have said that a skeptical approach should itself be subject to skeptical analysis. Message 51

Message 51: Certainly skeptics should question the validity of such an approach....

Ultimately I think you'll find that skepticism becomes part of pragmatism.

It is justified on the basis that a questioning and lacking-belief approach demonstrably yields practical results and makes relentless adherence to pointless superstition unnecessary.

Someone who was entirely unskeptical or genuinely agnostic with regard to every conceivable un-evidenced scenario (there might be brain damage inducing ethereal elephants congregating in my garden or there might not, I have no way of deciding either way) would spend their entire existence in a sort of Pascals wager state of avoidance of the terrible consequences of non-belief (going to hell, having brain damaged children etc. etc.)

Pragmatically speaking skepticism is necessary.

Straggler the pragmatical skeptic.

But that's not you being skeptical of your position, it is you saying that we should all question our approach and then patting yourself on the back for being "pragmatic" and "lacking-belief" and then claiming that it results your preferred position ... LOL. That's a "free ride" post if I ever saw one.

One problem with your use of "unable" for "genuinely agnostic" is that it has connotations of someone all in a dither, even when they have evidence rather than just someone who has insufficient information.

Someone who is "unconvinced" on the other hand is not so handicapped. Setting the question aside and waiting for more information to become available before deciding is not any sort of Pascal's wager, but a rather pragmatic approach to situations where there is insufficient information and no real need to rush to a decision.

Who knows what went through Eric's head (before his spine did). But Eric didn't consider himself a man of faith. He thought his conclusions to be subjectively evidenced knowledge garnered from a valid epistemology. Tragically this didn't work out too well for poor Eric.

And, curiously, his failure does not show any other world view to be "true" or "valid" -- just that his was invalidated, yes?"

You seem to have no problem telling those who age the Earth in thousands rather than billions of years that they are incontrovertibly wrong elsewhere.

Why so coy now?

Not really true, though is it, this claim of yours? Do you really need me to go over this again with you?

quote:
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1: The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results.
Message 2: Minimum age of the earth > 8,000 years based on this data.
Message 3: Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.
Message 4: Minimum age of the earth > 12,405 years based on this data.
Message 5: Minimum age of the earth = 35,987 years based on this data..
Message 6: Minimum age of the earth > 40,000 years based on this data.
Message 7: Minimum age of the earth > 250,000 years based on this NEW data.
Message 8: Minimum age of the earth > 900,000 years based on this data. ...

This is not me saying how old the earth "really" is (getting back to what is "reality" and how do we know ...), but that this is what the objective empirical information - aka data - shows, and that the task is for the creationists to show how correlation between these systems occurs with such seeming accuracy.

Remember this discussion of the word "know"?

We know that the world is over 4 billion years old.

Indeed, we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.

We do NOT know with certainty how much older it actually is.

We know we can be wrong sometimes, even about things which we have high confidence in. Therefore we could be wrong about the age of the world.

We are likely to be wrong about how much older than 4 billion years it is, based on the evidence, test methods and information we currently have, and the fact that new information can change this.

We almost know how old the earth is (according to the evidence, test methods and information that we currently have).

Remember this confidence scale?

The RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale (rev 1 proposed changes)

No Confidence Concepts
1. No evidence, or the evidence is inconclusive, conjecture involved, hypothetical arguments,
2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
Low Confidence Concepts
1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, untested and possibly untestable, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be valid or invalid
2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
Medium Confidence Concepts
1. Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, known to be testable or testable in theory, a scientific hypothesis where testing is incomplete, or that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or that is still in development,
2. Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made tentatively, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.
High Confidence Concepts
1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, empirically tested, and no known contradictory evidence
2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
Extreme Confidence Concepts
1. Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven to be true.
2. It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact.

This table shows how we can have different levels of positive confidence in concepts. We are also able to have equally negative confidence regarding inverse or alternative concepts that are contradicted by the same information and evidence.

... and I still want to know if you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that these changes are improvements ... perhaps in the next thread ...

Want to continue collaborating on that scale?

Note that your hypothetical word games are "0. No Confidence Concepts" ... yes?

Would the age of the earth be a "III. High Confidence Concept" ?

The fact that society has agreed something is irrelevant. Eric could have been a deeply charismatic man who managed to persuade the entire world that he was as special as he knew himself to be. But reality's assessment of Eric's epistemology and the validity of his conclusions remains all the same.

And yet consilience is about agreement.

So how do we tell which world view/s are more consilient with reality? What is reality and how do we know?

Question: Why do scientists concern themselves with evidence, why don't they use revelation?

Probably because, with their world views, they think it provides information about realty ... which gets us back to this question again.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ...

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 92 by Straggler, posted 02-23-2013 9:24 AM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 115 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2013 4:42 AM	RAZD has replied
	Message 116 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2013 6:52 AM	RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 159 of 271 (696329)
04-14-2013 6:55 PM

Reply to: Message 115 by Straggler
02-26-2013 4:42 AM

Re: not convinced

On your own scale this is where brain damage caused by ethereal elephants would come. Yes?

Yes, ... and your opinions depend on your world view. Different people will have different opinions.

Does your open-minded approach allow us to distinguish between opinion 1 and opinion 2 in terms of either one being any more or less rational than the other?

RAZ writes:

And I remain unconvinced that there is a determinable risk at this time.

I am not interested in how personally convinced you are that there is any determinable risk

Without a determinable risk there is no rational choice but to wait for more information.

Does your open-minded approach allow us to distinguish between opinion 1 and opinion 2 in terms of either one being any more or less rational than the other?

Strictly speaking the answer is no.

But again, you are free to have a personal opinion and act on that.

Enjoy

(I been sick, but I don't believe it is an ethereal elephants epidemic

)

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 115 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2013 4:42 AM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 162 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2013 5:24 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 160 of 271 (696330)
04-14-2013 7:03 PM

Reply to: Message 116 by Straggler
02-26-2013 6:52 AM

Re: Confidence Scale

Where, on this scale, can we place ourselves with regard to the confidence we have in the validity of the scale itself?

Interesting question -- what gives us confidence in anything?

Does this rely on objective application of discrete criteria, or is it subjective -- ie, would different people reach the same conclusion?

How do we know what is "true" in any concept?

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 116 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2013 6:52 AM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 163 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2013 5:47 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 161 of 271 (696331)
04-14-2013 7:31 PM

Reply to: Message 156 by ringo
03-05-2013 11:20 AM

an observation

Skepticism is all about tweaking your model, not thinking you already have the "Truth".

What causes us to tweak the model?

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 156 by ringo, posted 03-05-2013 11:20 AM		ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 164 by ringo, posted 04-15-2013 11:57 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 167 of 271 (696402)
04-15-2013 6:59 PM

Reply to: Message 162 by Straggler
04-15-2013 5:24 AM

Re: not convinced

Does your open-minded approach allow us to distinguish between opinion 1 and opinion 2 in terms of either one being any more or less rational than the other?

RAZ writes:

Strictly speaking the answer is no.

Why not?

Because, strictly speaking, neither of the two choices you provide are rational.

So - What is the safest rational course of action according to your approach? This is what I want to know.

RAZ writes:

Without a determinable risk there is no rational choice but to wait for more information.

Just waiting to see if my children become brain damaged is not a sensible approach to the predicament at hand ...

If you base your actions, worldview, etc, on evidence based concepts, and are consistently skeptical of any non-evidenced concepts, then you are forced to either wait for evidence or act non-skeptically on the basis of opinion (perhaps flavored with emotion, depending on how close you are to the situation).

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 162 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2013 5:24 AM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 172 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2013 1:00 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 168 of 271 (696403)
04-15-2013 7:03 PM

Reply to: Message 164 by ringo
04-15-2013 11:57 AM

Re: an observation

The desire to have a better model.

But how do we know the tweaks make it better?

Random fiddling would hardly be strictly speaking scientific -- what events cause tweaking to be considered?

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 164 by ringo, posted 04-15-2013 11:57 AM		ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 170 by ringo, posted 04-16-2013 11:57 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 169 of 271 (696404)
04-15-2013 7:09 PM

Reply to: Message 163 by Straggler
04-15-2013 5:47 AM

Re: Unconvinced

On it's own terms we cannot have any confidence in the legitimacy of your scale of confidence.

Why?

Curiously, blanket rejection is not debate or a way to convince anyone of your claim.

What specifically makes you feel this way?

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 163 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2013 5:47 AM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 171 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2013 12:52 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 173 of 271 (696546)
04-16-2013 6:57 PM

Reply to: Message 170 by ringo
04-16-2013 11:57 AM

Re: an observation

You're still missing a rather critical element imho, but so is Straggler ...

I don't think the tweaking is caused by "events" per se. I think it's a natural human behaviour to want to know "more".

What about "events" that force tweaking, wholesale revision or discarding of the model? Aren't they important in the scientific process?

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 170 by ringo, posted 04-16-2013 11:57 AM		ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 176 by ringo, posted 04-17-2013 11:58 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 174 of 271 (696555)
04-16-2013 7:37 PM

Reply to: Message 172 by Straggler
04-16-2013 1:00 PM

Re: not convinced

In what sense is the behaviour described in 2 irrational?

It is based on opinion, not on evidence. It would mean your assumption that a lack of information or evidence pro or con means that it must be against the concept as a basis for action. If you are consistent in application of skepticism, then you need to be skeptical of this assumption.

You may think it is a logical position based on your worldview, but inherent in that view are the assumptions you make that lead you to that conclusion.

Then you would come to 2 as a conclusion. If not why not?

No. because of being equally skeptical of both positions, and remaining unconvinced until there was evidence one way or the other.

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 172 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2013 1:00 PM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 178 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2013 1:40 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 175 of 271 (696559)
04-16-2013 8:16 PM

Reply to: Message 171 by Straggler
04-16-2013 12:52 PM

Re: Unconvinced: confidence built on repeatability

I have a simple question for you. Are you convinced of your position in this thread?

As much as I can be about most positions. It seems to me (anyway) that consistently applying the same basic principles and repeatedly ending up in the same place is a result of a rational approach. In general, some concepts would be level II (medium) and some level III (high) confidence concepts, depending on the levels of supporting evidence.

In your confidence scale you stipulate the criteria you require to rationally justify confidence in a given proposition.

Yet if we treat your confidence scale itself as a proposition (a proposition as to how confidence can be rationally acquired) then we see that it fails to meet it's own criteria.

You still do not explain why you feel this way.

If I look at various concepts I can fairly easily categorize them by this scale. If I repeatedly end up in the same level on specific concepts, this testing consistency gives confidence. If several people get the same results, then this objective testing consistency increases confidence, and if there are no contradictory results (high or low confidence result contrary to criteria) then this too leads to confidence.

Let's take an example concept:

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

Now I place this concept at III high confidence:

III High Confidence Concepts

Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, empirically tested, and no known contradictory evidence
Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

Do you disagree, and if so, why?

Your ethereal elephants would be a 0 no confidence concept in my evaluation:

0 No Confidence Concepts

No evidence, or the evidence is inconclusive, conjecture involved, hypothetical arguments,
No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible

and you agree IIRC, yes?

If we get consistent results by testing with various different concepts to judge the confidence we have, does this not lead to medium if not high confidence?

What leads to low confidence? Why do we think some concepts are wrong?

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 171 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2013 12:52 PM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 177 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2013 1:21 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 179 of 271 (697058)
04-20-2013 9:04 PM

Reply to: Message 178 by Straggler
04-17-2013 1:40 PM

really?

But there is only one non-evidenced concept here. ...

Technically speaking, this is, of course, wrong ... or do we need (sigh) to revisit pseudoskepticism again?

What is the evidence for (1)?

What is the evidence for (2)?

If only one is non-evidenced then the other must be evidenced -- what is the evidence?

The Thirteen Clocks (online), by James Thurber.

quote:
"'Half the places I have been to, never were. I make things up. Half the things I say are there cannot be found. When I was young I told a tale of buried gold, and men from leagues around dug in the woods. I dug myself."
"But why?"
"I thought the tale of treasure might be true."

An excellent (and very funny) book to share with your children btw ... one of my all time favorites.

3: In order to actively pursue more evidence pertaining to the possibility of my children being brain damaged by the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden I should take my children to the hospital every six months and insist that they are brain scanned for any signs of potential brain damage being caused by the aforementioned elephants.

Obviously you don’t like 1 and 2 so, with your insistence on the pursuit of more information in mind, I have added 3. Would 3 qualify as a rational course of action by the terms of your approach?

And if the test is negative, would that conclusively show that the risk did not exist?

Are you positive that this testing would show any and all possible results of brain damage?

Why would you not be equally skeptical of this approach?

The question is whether or not you are being consistent in your application of skepticism, or do you give certain concepts a "bye" (because they match your worldview) while being skeptical of others.

IE -- do you assume some things to be valid without evidence?

Do you assume that this assumption based process is pragmatic?

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 178 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2013 1:40 PM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 182 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2013 12:06 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 180 of 271 (697059)
04-20-2013 9:11 PM

Reply to: Message 176 by ringo
04-17-2013 11:58 AM

Re: an observation

We're not talking about the scientific process specifically. We're talking about scepticism in general. In the more rigourous form of scepticism, known as science, an objective consensus may "force" major tweaking.

And yet, technically, in the field of science, does not invalidation of an hypothesis "force" tweaking, wholesale revision or a complete discarding of the model?

If that is true\valid in science, then isn't that same approach valid\rational outside science?

So should we be more or less skeptical of concepts that are in discord with other concepts or evidence, when compared to ones with no (or less) discord?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 176 by ringo, posted 04-17-2013 11:58 AM		ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 184 by ringo, posted 04-22-2013 11:55 AM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 181 of 271 (697060)
04-20-2013 9:18 PM

Reply to: Message 177 by Straggler
04-17-2013 1:21 PM

Re: Unconvinced: confidence built on repeatability

... Is your confidence scale derived from any evidence? ...

Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me on the classification of the two examples given? I've run them by some people and all have agreed so far ...

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 177 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2013 1:21 PM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 183 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2013 12:24 PM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1434 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 185 of 271 (715324)
01-03-2014 7:42 PM

Reply to: Message 182 by Straggler
04-21-2013 12:06 PM

happy new year

You tell me!!!!

You have to make the decision based on your worldviews and what evidence you have.

If all 3 options - Taking practical action, not taking practical action and the active pursuit of more evidence are all ruled out as irrational - Then you need to tell me how your approach can possibly meet the criteria specified with regard to the proposition at hand.

Which one is the practical one? Without sufficient information you do not know this. If you feel threatened then make a decision based on your worldviews and what evidence you have. This is not a difficult concept Straggler.

You do agree that ethereal elephants are an unevidenced concept don't you? In which case scepticism towards this concept seems justified. Are you possibly conflating the concepts we are assessing with the assessments being made.....?

That would depend on where the concept came from. Skepticism is practical for any unknown new concepts with at best subjective anecdotal evidence, but so is open-mindedness.

Again the question is whether or not you are being consistent in your application of skepticism, or do you give certain concepts a "bye" (because they match your worldview) while being skeptical of others.

Message 183: According to Message 114 you are not convinced by most positions. So would you classify yourself as convinced or not convinced with regard to your position in this thread?

Again, as convinced as I can be about most positions. Not convinced that my opinions are absolutely true? Of course. Scientific tentativity rules out complete conviction yes?

Can I have some confidence in concepts that are not contraindicated by evidence or current theory? Some, but a wary confidence willing to yield to new information.

But if you are seeking to suggest that your little scale is descriptive rather than prescriptive because you have found some people that agree with a couple of your confidence assessments then it obviously falls apart under minimal further examination.

If you have suggestions to improve this then by all means suggest them.

You only have to look at this forum or poll the beliefs of your fellow countrymen to see that there are many who have considerable confidence in concepts which defy well established scientific knowledge (e.g. Young Earth Creationists). Yet there is no place for the existence of such confidence on your scale despite being widespread.

But the issue is not whether people have or don't have confidence in a concept but whether the concept on its own feet as it were can be categorized at a specific level of confidence.

A person will have confidence in concepts based on how they fit in with their world view (cognitive consonance) and have low confidence with concepts that don't fit in and cause cognitive dissonance. We see this with every poster here. The question is whether you can distinguish concepts that are connected to evidential basis from ones that aren't with an objective measure of innate confidence (ie confidence that can be measured independently of worldview.

Don't you agree that "concepts which defy well established scientific knowledge (e.g. Young Earth Creationists)" are not high confidence concepts?

Why don't such concepts that do have contraindicative evidence have a comparable objective comparison to concepts supported by objective empirical evidence that don't have any contraindicative evidence?

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 182 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2013 12:06 PM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 186 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2014 7:05 AM		RAZD has replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	AZPaul3, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 1/0