|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: The Nature of Scepticism | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days)  Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Says Straggler applying his worldview to the argument.
 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As I said: without information to support a valid conclusion you make up your mind according you your worldview.
Curiously I cannot make up your mind for you, nobody but you can do that.
Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such ... More same old same old. And I would note that certainly I was not advocating that conclusion being reached ... were you? An open-minded skeptic would conclude that there was insufficient information to make a decision, and that one would need to wait for more information before deciding -- that unless you perceive a personal danger you can afford to wait for more information to develop. Only if you perceive a personal danger then you would want to decide a course of action. But first you need to decide if there is a personal danger: same rules apply. Surely, you remember this:
Must be a slow week ... 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What makes you conclude that there is insufficient information to make a decision about the possibility of "inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants" being a danger? Do you have objective evidence? If you require objective evidence for decisions of one kind but not another are you being inconsistent?
I would think that since this elephant scenario is so similar to our past experiences of "somebody just making things up," we can confidently, and logically, conclude that such a phrase is also "just made up" by someone So you make a decision based on opinion rather than objective evidence. What is your logic -- that your opinion is more valid than someone elses?
Therefore, wouldn't we be able to make a logical conclusion based on this valid, empirical evidence? What empirical evidence? Opinion is not evidence.
For example: isn't it logical to conclude that the "the boy who cried wolf" is just making it up when he cries wolf again? I mean, we would be wrong when the wolf actually comes... (and such valid evidence would prove us wrong...) But "logically valid" doesn't necessarily equal "always 100% conforming to reality." So what do you learn from this? Not to cry wolf? That is the lesson for the boy (the point of the proverb) But what do the villagers learn? What is logical is to suggest someone verify the claim it rather than have the whole town turn out or to make a wholesale decision that it is a false claim. That the claim could be true and the prospect of losing sheep is a valid concern means that the claim should be independently tested. Another logical solution is to replace the kid when he makes a false claim.
If no, is it ever possible to use our valid, empirical evidence that it's human nature to imagine certain things and make a logical conclusion from that information? How do you test that it is made up? Do you just rely on your opinion or do you have some metric that could be objectively applied? Do you really know that the wolf is not there?
I would think that since this elephant scenario is so similar to our past experiences of "somebody just making things up," we can confidently, and logically, conclude that such a phrase is also "just made up" by someone. The question is why do you think a decision is necessary rather than just waiting for more information? With the boy\wolf scenario you send someone for new\added information before making a decision because there is a valid known danger based on empirical evidence yes? If you didn't know there was a valid known danger based on empirical evidence, and you can't validate that the claim was true (maybe the wolf disappears into the woods) then it would be logical to replace the person yes? Either way obtaining more information is logical before a decision is made. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The objective evidence is in Message 37, where Straggler used the elephant scenario as a made-up example to make a point in this debate. It was presented as a hypothetical scenario. All hypothetical scenarios are by definition made up, but the purpose is to consider how decisions would be made. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Objective evidence of what? ... Or that people make things up? Evidence that people sometimes make things up is not evidence that something stated by a person is de facto made up, and the reason this is so is because we also have objective evidence that people sometimes do not make things up.
A ↠ B does not mean that B ↠ A If A then B does not mean If B then A This is the core fallacy of bluegenes argument in the great debate.
I rely on objective evidence. Objective evidence that people make things up. Objective evidence about how scenarios look when people make things up. (Context, evidence for the claim, repeatability...) Objective evidence about how scenarios look when people do not make things up. (Context, evidence for the claim, repeatability...) Then I ask others to see if they get the same results. Some will, some won't. Then I ask them about how they got the same results. If all the ones who agree used my method, and all those who disagree did not... then it is objectively made up. That some do not shows it is not objective but subjective ... that it is opinion.
No opinion required. ... in your opinion. You make an assumption relating "context" based on your worldview regarding how things "look" ...
The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. ...seems like we have valid, empirical evidence that when the boy cries wolf, we can logically induce that there actually is no wolf. Observed by a different group at a different time. One boy charged with watching sheep to protect them from wolvesThe boy cries wolf ... no wolf observed by party that goes to check. Two boys left to watch sheep Both boys cry wolf ... no wolf observed by party that goes to check. Three boys left to watch sheep All boys cry wolf ... What is your move at that point? Assume that all three are making it up" or that the wolf may be disappearing when the cry goes up? Isn't it more appropriate to get more information, see if the observation is replicated? Enjoy.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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And as I said - Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such - Is almost certainly wrong in their ethereal-elephant 'world view' conclusion. Which would be a reasonable response if that is what I was saying. It seems you cannot comprehend the simple concept of not reaching a conclusion ... ignoring the issue until there is more information.
Insufficient information to make a decision about whether or not brain damage inducing ethereal elephants are a realistic possibility..... Oh dear. Insufficient information to make a decision means insufficient information to make a decision. This means waiting\abstaining\ignoring until more information is available. It does NOT mean deciding pro or con. You started this with a hypothetical situation and questioned how consistent an open-minded skeptic position would be. I have told you. Many times. Consistently. That you would advocate taking an inconsistent approach to skepticism? Oh dear. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is very true. Although irrelevant. When you ignore the relevance.
What makes you think that having evidence something is de facto made up is required? Such a thing, actually, is impossible to ever achieve. In fact, there is no observation of reality, no matter how many times it's repeated or verified... that it can become de facto knowledge. Because we don't know the future. Not that you exist.Not the formula F=ma Not the laws of thermodynamics Not a single observation of reality can ever be known "de facto" anything as long as we are unable to observe all of time. Which is irrelevant to the point I was making. Let's turn it around: people make observations that are not made up (the earth circles the sun for instance) Therefore all observations people are true ... which is an obvious fallacy. Is a new observation by one person factual or made up? You don't know, and you don't know, because it has not been validated not because you can magically tell whether it is made up or not. Assuming it is factual is an opinionAssuming it is made up is an opinion Therefore, we're not trying to find any evidence that anything is de facto made up. We're just trying to find evidence to plan for the future about things being made up. By assuming a priori they are made up. Imho a total failure of skepticism (a consistent skepticism would question all conclusions).
Do you know the future? I'm going to go with "no." Therefore, all you can do as well is plan for the future with the information available. Based on your opinion\worldview you make your best guess.
In this case you decide planning for the future is necessary so you take path (B).
You seem to imply that just because we have objective evidence for two different possibilities then the resulting conclusion must therefore be an opinion. Curiously I'm implying that you don't have objective evidence, and thus the conclusions reached are based on opinion.
You are right that there is objective evidence about how things appear when then are made up. You are right that there is objective evidence about how things appear when they are not made up. Not what I've said, but carry on ... Which you imply would be valid for all cases ... something you said above was invalid. And you are implying that you can predict that all future cases will look made up when they are made up and look factual when they are factual ... so now you can magically know the future eh? Or do you assume ... Let's take an example:
quote: Without a clear indication of the author's intent how would we apply your paradigm to decide one was a made up parody or and actual statement of a position?
Therefore, it is an objective conclusion that the next time this boy cries wolf, there will be no wolf. No it is an assumption based on your opinion, you have no way to know whether it is factual or made up ... no matter how many times you repeat the scenario, because there is always the possibility that it is actually factual at one time ... as we see in the parable. The villagers failed to protect the sheep because they made your assumption and thereby reached an invalid conclusion.
The observation has already been replicated. And in the last case in the parable it was proven to be a false conclusion. Why was a false conclusion reached? Was it because the boy lied some of the times, or was it false because it was based on a false premise -- the assumption that all cries were lies. Pretending that your opinion is objective is a sure path to fundamentally false conclusions imho. Edited by RAZD, : inv Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : ...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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Of course I can comprehend not making a decision. But we have all the information we need to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants (or any other similarly unevidenced phenomenon) is unlikely to be a real. That is the conclusion an evidence led skeptical approach leads to. Taking that this is an hypothetical situation intentionally taken to such an extreme that the answer is actually built into the question, the basic fault is in the formation of the hypothetical situation not being a true test of skepticism. It's just another of your typically pointless word games. Is there any evidence that this concept is worth making a decision?
You seem to prefer path (D) while I prefer path (C). Curiously I see (D) as being less skeptical than (C).
Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such - Is ... ... also taking path (D). Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : ..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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Of course it is. It doesn't prove it with 100% certainty. But evidence isn't about certainty. It's about increasing the probability that something is true. No discovered dead prey animals, no tracks, no furs by someone who knows where to look to find these kinds of things - these things increase the probability of the proposition being true. And what if these were found on the next mountain, but no other evidence? There is objective evidence that wolves do exist and that they have attacked sheep in the past yes?
Yes you do. We have evidence that personalities and abilities are broadly consistent over time. That's why, for example, convicted rapists and murderers have a hard time getting elected to high office. There is an increased probability over others that they will commit serious offences in the future. So if the boy had never lied before, and swore under oath that he saw a wolf we should decide he is now a liar based on failure to verify his claim yes?
Well because I believe that personalities are consistent over time - I would believe the boy genuinely thought he saw a wolf. Indeed, even if this happened a couple of times? Remember that the end scenario of the parable is that there is a wolf. This means that the lesson for the villagers is that their assumption of lying all the time was based on invalid logic: they should have found a different way to approach the problem. Being skeptical of the assumption of false witness should have led into a more appropriate conclusion, yes? 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Remember, unlike us, the villagers explicitly knew there was no wolf. ... And yet, curiously, in the end the wolf did exist and did attack the sheep. They assumed they knew. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Firstly - By it's own terms your little flow chart isn't based on any evidence so it can be ignored (C). It's just another of your typically pointless graphical intrusions. You asked for a rational approach to decision making.
Secondly - An evidence led skeptical approach leads to the conclusion that brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants are very probably not a real phenomeon. By assuming you have sufficient evidence? Again: IF you have sufficient evidence then it is a different question, isn't it? Then you are on path (A) yes? What is it?
That your approach to skepticism doesn't allow you to accept or reach that conclusion merely demonstrates the problems with your approach Curiously the point is that it doesn't need to reach either conclusion to abstain from the question and ignore it until there may be more information -- unless you can provide a reason not to do so. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So he was doing it to laugh at them, ... Then they made a mistake to let him do it again.
Now, once you've absorbed that, perhaps you could address the meat of my post rather than mangle Aesop's story. ooo better admonish Stile as well. The point is that a different approach that considered the existence of a wolf to be a valid concern (why the boy was there in the first place yes?) was still important and that they should have replaced him after the first time, or some other solution. The point is how a consistent skeptical approach would come to the best solution yes? 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
His brother ASSUMED it was a robber and CONCLUDED he was a threat. Sad.
However it is not without flaws. Which is why it is sometimes prudent to error on the side of safety. If one assumes there is always a wolf one will never be surprised when the wolf does come for the herd. Indeed. That was the error the villagers made. If they had been skeptical of their conclusion that should have lead to a different approach. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
