Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 271 (690942)
02-18-2013 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Phat
02-18-2013 7:43 AM


Re: The Fray
Phat writes:
Science uses the scientific method, don't they?
Science is the application of the scientific method. Practically by definition. But as I said previously I think we are using the term "science" more broadly to refer to empirical evidence as a basis for knowledge.
Phat writes:
And would it not also depend on who is making the claims?
It matters in the sense that some people demonstrably know what they are talking about and other demonstrably don't. But in principle scientific claims are able to be challenged by anyone who is willing to put in the time and effort to learn the subject and able to demonstrate that they do know what they are talking about. The truth will out....... sort of approach.
Phat writes:
Extraordinary claims may well require extraordinary evidence, but for me personally, vivid dreams are weak yet possible evidence as well as daily happenings that are beyond random coincidence...though I suppose you will challenge me to explain the difference between..say..a chance encounter and a divine appointment.
I'd challenge you to show that anything you are putting forward as a form of evidence (e.g. dreams) results in conclusions which are demonstrably superior to those obtained by random chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 02-18-2013 7:43 AM Phat has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 51 of 271 (690995)
02-18-2013 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2013 3:18 PM


Pragmatism
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.
Like Dr A said everyone is a skeptic but some people make subjective exceptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2013 3:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 53 of 271 (690998)
02-18-2013 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
02-18-2013 2:55 PM


Re: What Is Crazy?
Yeah I've seen the other thread and I've decided to stay out of it. I think Crazy is an emotive and oft misused word. I think many people (most? maybe even all?) hold some views that can be considered eccentric and that "crazy" is in many ways a culturally relative term. I'd reserve it for those who are so distanced from reality as to be effectively unable to function in the real world rather than those who say things I consider idiotic on a debate board where I expect to ardently disagree with people anyway.
So - No I don't think you are crazy. I think you share a culturally widespread delusion and that you seek to justify it through various mental contortions. I think that most others who share your delusion are too lazy or apathetic to explore their belief in the way that you do and that it is mildly admirable that you at least think about these things where many avoid such questioning.
But primarily I just think you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 02-18-2013 2:55 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 54 of 271 (691001)
02-18-2013 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
02-18-2013 7:49 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep ... amusing
No normal person would sit there without comment or action and allow small children to incur brain damage if this was a remotely realistic possibility would they? If this scenario was remotely likely it would demand action wouldn't it?
On the basis that you wouldn't risk brain damage to small children simply to score points in an internet debate I can only conclude that your lack of concern, despite long-winded assertions regarding things being unproven and whatnot, is because to all practical intents and purposes you are as skeptical of the brain-damage-inducing-congregation-of-ethereal-elephants-in-my-garden as I am.
If you consider this scenario a remotely realistic possibility why aren't you more concerned regarding the potential brain damage being induced in small children?
Straggler writes:
Are all world views equally consistent with reality or are some more so than others? How do you determine which are more consilient with reality and which are less?
RAZD writes:
What is reality? How do you know?
Well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? In order to explore this let's consider someone who has a radically different world view to either you or I and who thus takes a radically different approach to knowledge.
Consider hypothetical Bob. Bob works under the assumption that empirical evidence is designed to deceive. That scientific conclusions are those of weak minded fools too embroiled in the deception to see the wood for the trees. Instead Bob relies on a sacred text and divine revelation in order to gain access to the truths of reality.
According to his method of knowing the Earth is about 1,000 years old. According to his method of knowing the empirical evidence that says that the Earth is billions of years old was put there to deceive and cannot be trusted.
Is Bob's world view equally as valid as a more scientific world view?
Is Bob's conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more or less likely to be correct than the scientific conclusion?
How do we decide?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2013 7:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2013 10:51 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 68 of 271 (691089)
02-20-2013 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
02-18-2013 10:51 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep ... amusing
When confronted with an un-evidenced proposition, the consequences of which are dire if ignored, you ignore it. The un-evidenced proposition in question is not treated as a realistic possibility. The proposition is treated to all practical intents and purposes as if it were NOT true. This is indistinguishable from taking a defacto atheist approach to un-evidenced propositions. This is indistinguishable from taking a sceptical approach to un-evidenced propositions.
Despite all your talk of proof and your relentless insistence on applying the term agnostic in a way so generic as to be pointless and meaningless (not proved rather than disproved ...it could be true and it could be false — This ultimately applies to everything and anything RAZ) your approach is in practise indistinguishable from that of the skeptic.
As Dr A has pointed out in this thread — Everyone is a skeptic except when they want to give some particular favored idea a free ride. Now we don’t need to go over the particular ideas you want to give a free ride to in this thread. In this thread we need only note that in the overwhelming majority of cases your position with regard to un-evidenced propositions is identical to that of the skeptic. A Defacto atheist position (albeit dressed up in sematic waffle)
RAZD writes:
What is reality? How do you know?
Straggler writes:
Well that is the crux of the matter isn't it?
RAZD writes:
And yet you didn't answer it.
Well it would be difficult to cover the entirety of epistemological thinking in a single sentance, paragraph or post. We would be doing well to cover it in a single thread. But that is ultimately what this thread is about. So I suggest we look at some proposed methods of knowing and see if we can reach common ground on how to evaluate them. I have already put forward Bob's epistemology. So let's look at that a bit more.
Straggler writes:
Is Bob's world view equally as valid as a more scientific world view?
RAZD writes:
Amusingly, I am pretty sure that he would think it was more valid, otherwise he wouldn't behave the way he does.
Exactly. Bob is convinced that his world view is superior to those who hold a more empiricist world view. Those who hold a more empiricist world view are convinced that theirs is superior to Bob's divine-revalationist epistemological approach.
More specifically Bob's world view results in him concluding that the Earth is less than a 1,000 years old. A scientific world view results in the conclusion that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. So we are faced with different specific conclusions based on different methods of knowing.
Straggler writes:
Is Bob's conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more or less likely to be correct than the scientific conclusion?
RAZD writes:
What does "more correct" mean
Well if the Earth really is less than 1,000 years old Bob's conclusion regarding this matter is "more correct". If the Earth is billions of years old the scientific conclusion is "more correct". Surely this is obvious.......
RAZD writes:
Now when I ask what is reality, you seem to be saying that reality is "more correct" -- making a circular argument rather than answering the question.
Reality is that which we are ultimately trying to obtain knowledge of. Whatever epistemology we may or may not adopt the aim is to acquire knowledge of whatever reality it is that exists.
RAZ writes:
Indeed ... how does Hypothetical Bob decide?
Bob adopted his epistomology because it was subjectively appealing to him.
Do you think this a sensible approach to selecting a method of knowledge acquisition? What other options are there?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2013 10:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2013 8:20 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 76 of 271 (691338)
02-22-2013 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
02-20-2013 8:20 PM


Consistency of Approach
If a specific proposition is given little credence, is not deemed a realistic possibility regardless of being unfalsified and is treated to all practical intents and purposes as if it were untrue — Then I would describe this approach as skeptical and the position taken towards that proposition as atheistic. If you want to get pedantically technical I would call it skeptical and defacto-atheist to make clear that a position of certainty isn’t being taken.
With regard specifically to the proposition that brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants-are-congregating-in-the-garden it seems we both give the proposition little credence, neither of us deem it a realistic possibility and both of us treat the proposition to all practical intents and purposes as if it were not true. The only real difference between us with regard to brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants-congregating-in-the-garden is that you rather foolishly insist on applying a blanket term of agnostic.
However in this thread the label applied doesn’t really matter. It is the consistency of approach that matters. And this is where we fundamentally differ. Because I would consistently apply then same skeptical approach to ALL unknowable but unfalsifiable propositions. I would treat all such propositions in exactly the same manner as I treat the proposition that there are brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants-congregating-in-the-garden.
In your case however we need look little further than your username or the tagline splayed across the bottom of all your posts to see that you do not take the same approach to all such propositions. That your approach is not consistent. You make exceptions for your favoured ideas.
Dr A writes:
There are in effect only two kinds of people: there are skeptics, and then there are people who are skeptics except which they want to give some particular favored idea a free ride.
Like I said before — We don’t need to go into the details of your particular favoured idea here. We just need to note the inconsistency of approach you take when considering unfavoured ideas as compared to those that you do favour.
RAZD writes:
Would you agree that A and B are rather irrational behaviors?
But I don't see anyone behaving as described in A) or B) with regard to brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants-congregating-in-the-garden. With regard to this particular proposition I see no difference between us either in terms of approach taken or the credence given to the proposition in question. Any differnces are purely semantic.
However with regard to your more favoured idea (the one incorporated into your username) your approach is considerably closer to B. And - Yes - Since you ask - I would call that irrational.
RAZD writes:
Remember this?
Yes. And as I think I have pointed out to you before the "ignore" position is ignostic rather than agnostic. Ignosticism is a perfectly valid approach to propositions which are so ill defined and incoherent as to be impossible to evaluate.
Straggler writes:
Well if the Earth really is less than 1,000 years old Bob's conclusion regarding this matter is "more correct". If the Earth is billions of years old the scientific conclusion is "more correct".
RAZD writes:
But how do we know what the age of the earth really is ...
If, as you seem to be suggesting, all methods of knowledge acquisition are essentially axiomatic with no one epistemology superior to any other then all we can ever do is say something like the following Bob, based on your epistemological premise you have drawn a conclusion and I, based on a different epistemological premise, have drawn an opposing conclusion. Neither is right. Neither is wrong. All conclusions are simply a matter of subjectively preferred starting premise.
Now as someone who spends much of their time at EvC telling those who have adopted a biblicist approach to knowledge that they are wrong and that the true age of the Earth is billions of years I find it mildly surprising that you are going down this route. But as we have already seen consistency of approach isn’t exactly your forte
RAZD writes:
Everyone wants to give their worldview a free ride when it comes to judging situations -- it is basic to how people behave.
Question: Why do scientists concern themselves with evidence, why don't they use revelation?
Straggler writes:
Bob adopted his epistomology because it was subjectively appealing to him. Do you think this a sensible approach to selecting a method of knowledge acquisition?
RAZD writes:
But that is what everybody does, it's part of your worldview.
I think we can examine this claim of yours by considering an epistemological stance that is subjectively appealing but demonstrably flawed.
Consider hypothetical Eric. Eric’s epistemology is best described as egocentrism. Eric feels that he is special. Eric is not like everyone else. Eric operates under the subjectively appealing premise that he has a special, unique and important role in the universe. Whilst others are mere bit part players on the stage that is reality Eric is the star of the show. Based on this epistemology Eric knows that he can come to no significant harm. Eric knows that, whilst others can die, his role in the universe is too important for this to be possible. In order to demonstrate his specialness to the pseudo-skeptical naysayers who refuse to accept Eric’s epistemology as viable Eric volunteers to leap out of a 10th storey window. Eric assures everyone that he will come to no harm. Eric knows this to be true.
Eric leaps out of the window and plummets to his death.
So — In summary — I would suggest that the reason people don’t adopt Eric’s egocentrist epistemology has nothing to do with such a stance lacking subjective appeal. The reason people do not adopt such an epistemology is because they wouldn’t survive very long if they did. If one’s method of knowledge acquisition isn’t even able to deter one from unwittingly plummeting to one’s death at the first opportunity then I would suggest that one’s method of knowledge acquisition is somewhat lacking.
Would you not agree?
RAZD writes:
What is reality? How do you know?
Reality is that which made a rather brutal assessment of the validity of Eric’s epistemology. Reality is that which constrains our subjective whims.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2013 8:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2013 10:02 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 271 (691488)
02-22-2013 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by DBlevins
02-22-2013 2:40 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep
Scientfic conclusions are falsifiable.
If someting is falsifiable it has not been proved.
This is the distinction RAZ is missing when he talks about "proof"..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 2:40 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 02-22-2013 3:30 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 84 by DBlevins, posted 02-22-2013 5:11 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2013 9:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 92 of 271 (691589)
02-23-2013 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by RAZD
02-22-2013 10:02 PM


Re: Still going in circles, that is consistent ...
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.
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.
RAZ writes:
Seems rather irrational to me to make up stuff so you can then say you don't believe it.
Argument through example. We could have considered the ideas favoured by established religions. We could have considered your favoured idea as our example. But it is less emotive to consider a more neutral proposition. Anyway the ethereal elephant proposition seems to have served it's purpose by establishing a shared baseline from which the inconsistency in your approach can then be highlighted.
RAZ writes:
So there you are in your garden saying "There are no ethereal elephants inaudible trumpeting in my garden"
I can assure you that I have never physically uttered those words in my garden or indeed anywhere else.
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.
Because, unlike some people, I don't change my skeptical approach because a particular unknowable idea has more subjective appeal.
RAZ writes:
Let's try a different word\meaning for "agnostic" -- try "unconvinced" and see if that clarifies what a skeptical position would properly be.
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.
RAZ writes:
So you should be ending up at "C" rather than the "D" you always seem to pick?
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.
RAZ writes:
And yet your position is not founded on any objective empirical evidence, so by the precepts you have laid out here you should be skeptical\atheistic about your position.
I haven't laid out any precepts and I have yet to even mention objective empirical evidence in this thread.
RAZ writes:
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
RAZ writes:
btw -- do you think Eric ever "lost faith" in his belief?
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.
Straggler writes:
If, as you seem to be suggesting, all methods of knowledge acquisition are essentially axiomatic with no one epistemology superior to any other then all we can ever do is say something like the following Bob, based on your epistemological premise you have drawn a conclusion and I, based on a different epistemological premise, have drawn an opposing conclusion. Neither is right. Neither is wrong. All conclusions are simply a matter of subjectively preferred starting premise.
RAZD writes:
What is "right" and what is "wrong" ... ?
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?
RAZ writes:
Now we probably agree (I would hope so anyway) that this view is "wrong" ... but how do we -- individually and as a society -- make that determination?
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.
RAZ writes:
Which still doesn't really answer the question of how we tell which worldview is better.
Question: Why do scientists concern themselves with evidence, why don't they use revelation?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2013 10:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2013 8:58 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 271 (691593)
02-23-2013 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
02-22-2013 9:08 PM


Re: Gosh Straggler
RAZ writes:
I'll give you a hint: I agreed with DBlevins.
And DBlevins apparently agrees with me. So that makes us one big happy agreeable family.
How jolly!!
RAZ writes:
Go back and read the posts between myself and DBlevins and you should find out who was talking about "proof."
You were.
And if - as seems to be the case - You are taking an axiomatic approach to knowledge acquisition "proof" would be a potential consequence of that.
Are you advocating an axiomatic approach to knowledge?
RAZ writes:
When you find it you can either admit that you made an error or not -- I'll still know.
I love it when you turn on the charm RAZ.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2013 9:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2013 5:34 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 101 of 271 (691659)
02-23-2013 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
02-23-2013 5:34 PM


Re: Gosh Straggler -- seems you still don't get it right yet.
RAZD writes:
No, Truzzi was.
Truzzi isn't here posting messages. You are.
If you are posting messages advocating positions that you are not actually taking then the mind boggles as to how you expect anyone to reasonably respond to anything you say.
The next time you post anything that might constitute an on topic position could you make clear which bits of that position you actually subscribe to and which bits you are just posting for fun and japes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2013 5:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2013 10:06 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 103 of 271 (691696)
02-24-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
02-24-2013 10:06 AM


Re: Gosh Straggler -- seems you still don't get it right yet.
If your own posts submitted by you to support your own position contain arguments whose wording you disagree with then you place yourself in the bizarre situation of misrepresenting yourself.
I strongly suggest you desist from this rather absurd undertaking.
Anyway - I know from past experience that when you start engaging in these relentless and hysterical "you said I said" claims of misrepresentation that it is because the main discussion isn't going how you would like it to.
RAZ writes:
I would assume that Truzzi means that the claim is not proved rather than disproved ... it could be true and it could be false.
RAZ writes:
Do you AGREE with this characterization of skepticism? It's a simple question.
I am reluctant to respond to anything you haven't written in your own words because it appears to be only a matter of time before you start declaring "I didn't say that, you are misrepresenting me...."
If you want to reply to Message 92 in your own words rather than Truzzi's words then I will be delighted to continue an on topic discussion about the nature of skepticism and associated methods of knowledge acquisition. In that post I have taken the time to explain what I mean by "agnostic" alongside highlighting what I think are other likely points of merely semantic difference between us.
I will only say one thing further in this post - If the form of skepticism and associated method of knowledge acquisition you are advocating here doesn't even enable one to make decisions regarding things like whether or not brain damage from the inaudible trumpeting or ethereal elephants is a realistic possibility - Then I would suggest that this form of skepticism and the epistemology associated with it is useless in a very practical sense.
Which is fine. Being practically unusable doesn't necessarily invalidate it as an academic argument. But if this is the case it does mean we need an alternative strategy to come to useful conclusions when confronted by propositions which if ignored have potentially dire consequences.
I don't want my children to be brain damaged. So in a very practical sense I do need to be able to decide if such a proposition is realistic and worthy of credence or not. If you tell me that your form of skepticism necessitates me just ignoring possible brain damage to my children then obviously it isn't something I can ever adopt in practise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2013 10:06 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2013 2:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 107 of 271 (691743)
02-25-2013 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by RAZD
02-24-2013 2:09 PM


Re: Gosh Straggler -- still with your pants down.
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.
If however your form of skepticism results in the conclusion that the proposition in question is not a realistic possibility then I don't see that we are disagreeing over anything but terminology.
RAZD writes:
Do you AGREE with this characterization of skepticism? It's a simple question.
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)
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"?
Should a justifiably skeptical approach result in different conclusions when considering grounded and ungrounded propositions?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2013 2:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2013 4:20 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 110 of 271 (691771)
02-25-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by kofh2u
02-25-2013 10:48 AM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are rhose who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
So all knowledge is axiomatic as far as you are concerned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by kofh2u, posted 02-25-2013 10:48 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by kofh2u, posted 02-27-2013 2:16 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 113 of 271 (691849)
02-25-2013 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by RAZD
02-25-2013 4:20 PM


Re: so back to the topic
Compared to the potential for long term brain damage to my children neither horse meat nor scoring points in an internet debate forum concern me.
Is brain damage caused by the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants a realistic possibility? Does your approach allow me to come to a rational conclusion regarding this matter?
RAZ writes:
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.
Obviously I don't want to wait to see if my children have been brain damaged before taking preventative action.
So what would you advise that I do in order to avoid this? Should I evacuate them to their grandmothers flat where there is no garden in which ethereal elephants will congregate?
RAZ writes:
Still with the word games ... kind of like asking if 2+2=5 in an alternate universe ... pointless mental masturbation imho.
Dude if you don't want to partake in mutual mental masturbation why are you even participating in a thread whose entire purpose is to consider propositions for which (to quote Russel from the OP) "there is no ground whatever for supposing true"?
RAZ writes:
What do you mean by grounded?
We should certainly get back to this once we have decided what to do about my potentially-being-brain-damaged kids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2013 4:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 115 of 271 (691883)
02-26-2013 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
02-25-2013 8:58 PM


Re: not convinced
Compared to the potential for long term brain damage to my children neither epistemological musings nor scoring points in an internet debate forum concern me. The question of whether practical action needs to be taken to avoid my children becoming brain damaged needs to be resolved before we can move on.
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.
I have only two criteria that you need concern yourself with:
[1] I want to safeguard my children from suffering brain damage.
[2] I want to act in a manner that is rational.
Thus I am in effect asking you what positions and actions qualify as rational if we apply your open-minded approach to the proposition in question.
RAZ writes:
No evidence, or the evidence is inconclusive, conjecture involved, hypothetical arguments. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible.
On your own scale this is where brain damage caused by ethereal elephants would come. Yes?
  • Opinion 1: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is a realistic proposition and action should be taken to avoid damage to my children's brains (i.e. I should evacuate my children to a gardenless place)
  • Opinion 2: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is not a realistic proposition and there is no need to take any practical action to avoid it.
    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?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 114 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2013 8:58 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 159 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2013 6:55 PM Straggler 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