The Nature of Scepticism

I think I understand where you're coming from, in that you're making certain assumptions and staying within them to address the questions...But in this case, why can't you admit that you know the elephants don't exists because Straggler just made them up to make a point in a debate?Is one of your assumptions that you are without that knowledge, or something?

I think it is a personal judgement call as to how many times you require for your validation.But to come to the conclusion the boy is lying based on his previous history of lying is a assumption.assume transitive verb \ə-ˈsm\ : to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is trueIt makes an ASS out of U & ME.

Do you have objective evidence? If you require objective evidence for decisions of one kind but not another are you being inconsistent? 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? What empirical evidence? Opinion is not evidence. 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. 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? 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.

I agree. Again, I agree.The important part is deciding when repeated observations of the past are valid enough to make plans for the future.
1?
2?
over 9, 000?
different for different situations?Note... it's "making plans" for the future... not "signing my soul over to the devil if I'm not 100% correct about this for all of eternity" My point here is that "never" is a ridiculous reservation.
If "never" was used... we would not have computers. Or even be alive, really...

No, its a conclusion. They happen at the end. The assumptions go at the beginning. In this case the assumption is that one can infer general statements from specific observations (ie., induction is the assumption). We also assume that we can know truth. We assume that we can arrive at truth through observation.It isn't proven beyond all doubt that the boy is lying: but one can (and often must) reach conclusions based on a balance of probabilities. It is a tentative conclusion based on all the evidence we have that personality traits are largely stable over time and pranksters and liars will prank and lie.

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.

Sure all sounds reasonable. Except it is again a conclusion based on a assumption.
And it is that one time the kid is telling the truth that will bite you in the ass.

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. Insufficient information to make a decision about whether or not brain damage inducing ethereal elephants are a realistic possibility.....Oh dear.

Hi Stile,I am in agreement too. My whole point was this:I have a daughter of 7 and a step daughter of 10.
The ten year old has had past history of lying and stealing certain toys and such of the 7 year old.
It became a problem but we deal with it and try not to wreck our kids self esteem or break their spirits.So one day I had to withdraw some cash to pay for something.It was 160 dollars. I put it in a drawer I keep stuff in like my wallet , bills and such that must be addressed. The money was in a postal envelope, (all 20's). The morning I got the money envelope I counted it and it was short 60 dollars, 3 twenties.
I searched everywhere. I made the assumption that If I did not take it, and my wife who I asked did not take it and I asked the 7 year old who was still home if she took it . She said no. Then concluded it was the 10 year old. I was livid. I could not confront her because she was already at school. I knew when I confronted her she would lie and deny taking it. I made it a point to try and not make to big a deal about it, but it had to be addressed, this stealing must STOP!
Just on a whim, I went back home, looked through the drawer again. Pressed into the side crack of the drawer was the 3 twentys. They were brand new, and very crisp and must of slipped out of the envelope when I put them in there.I was so relieved that I did not accuse my step daughter, because it would of been bad. She would of been telling the truth, and I would of course not of believed her. I was spared this by looking more into it. By exhausting all before the final conclusion.
I believe there is a lesson here somewhere.Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

Who says it was made-up rather than derived from a subjective experience...?

{oooh: post 6000, nice round number.} All conclusions are based on assumptions. Take a physics exam and in answering the questions, part of your marks rely on you identifying the assumptions you had to make to reach your conclusions. Newton's laws have assumptions, Einstein's do - your computer is built based on conclusions derived from making assumptions. You make assumptions that are life and death every day. Assumptions are not bad, they are necessary. You just have to be aware of what assumptions you are making, why you made them, and where they might fail. So we should believe pathological liars and act on those beliefs (such as getting weapons and running to protect the herd) just in case its the one time they're telling the truth?IF you had a friend who regularly yelled 'Fire!' when he makes an entrance at parties - would you always evacuate and call the fire brigade and not return to the building until they had checked it out?All knowledge is tentative, and we weigh the costs of believing a claim (ie the actions we take as a result of such a belief) by the probability of the claim being true versus the costs of not believing the claim based on the probability of it being false. This is basic decision making, right? We know we need to make decisions, and in order to make decisions we have to make assumptions. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

All reasonable statements. Your point of course well founded.If my dogs are barking and everytime I go out there, there is nothing.
Am i going to get up the 10th time? No.But guess what? When I wake up in the morning and something is stolen or vandalized I would be ill pressed to blame the dogs.
The same could be said of anything. One thing does not necessarly follow another. The boy does not have to be lying.
We can be in grave error in our assumptions. I know it is obvious but we are all just EVC-ing here aren't we?
I get it Modulous.

Objective evidence of what? Specifically about inaudible trumpeting elephants? Or that people make things up?I think it's rather objective that people can and do make things up.
It is also objective that when people make things up, it comes off exactly that same as this "inaudible trumpeting elephant" claim... Major indicators (but not the only ones) are things like context and the fact that no additional supporting evidence was provided for the claim. I learn many things:
-not to cry wolf
-this boy isn't to be trusted until he can prove himself again
-do not leave a boy to do a man's jobI am not limited to only learning one thing from any particular situation. To imply that the only possible lesson of a story is the one intended by the original author is... unimaginative. Well yeah... as you can see from my example, the boy cried wolf 5 times and there was no wolf.
From my example... there was never even known to be a wolf around anyway.
From my example... the story isn't finished and the wolf has never shown up.So, what does your logic say when you apply it to my example?I would suggest something closer to the scientific method where you make observations and use repeatable observations to plan for the future.When those observations change... you should change.
When those observations stay consistent... you should stay consistent.You are limited to the observations you make (as we all are).
You can always make more... and you are the judge as to how much you need.
Things can always turn out different from the observations you've experienced in the past... and we need to remember this and try to plan for it accordingly. 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.No opinion required. Nope.
Do you? I don't think so...
Why would we replace a person if the wolf maybe disappeared into the woods? That doesn't sound logical at all, you'd never find any person who would be qualified, so what's the point in replacing them?It seems to me we should base things on the observations we have. Here's the scenario again. Please don't add other aspects of the story, let's just see if we can find something simple that we can agree on: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.No?

Heh... for sure. Probably more than one, even And there are stories on the other side of the fence as well... people who are exhausting their search and die trying instead of just moving forward, missed dreams because they never took a risk and all that sort of stuff.It is a complicated monster, llfe.And we're back to making decisions on the information we have in the time frame we deem "worthy."See how I said that all confident-like as if it actually helps?

You and me both.