Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
30 online now:
Aussie, dwise1, Faith, JoeT, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 1651 of 1725 (632825)
09-10-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1632 by RAZD
09-09-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence
Is it possible to have knowledge in the absence of certainty?

Is it possible to acquire tentative knowledge as a result of scientific investigation?

Can you give an example of something which can accurately be described as "known" as a result of scientific evidence?

Bertrand Russel writes:

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

Amen to that eh?

Dawkins Scale writes:

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

NOTE: "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

ALL evidence based knowledge is tentative RAZ. As long as you deny this you will continue to foolishly describe belief in the existence of gods as equivalent to things like knowledge of what a pen will do if dropped.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1632 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 6:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1661 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 3:40 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 1664 by xongsmith, posted 09-11-2011 5:00 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1652 of 1725 (632826)
09-10-2011 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1627 by xongsmith
09-09-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism By Fiat
Faced with a genuinely supernatural being such as Thor the scientific community wouldn't be expected to do anything other than search for natural explanations for his abilities and honestly admit that they can't find any when this proves impossible. Because if he is genuinely supernatural his abilities will defy material explanation.

But the fact that an entity exactly matching the human concept of Thor, genuinely possessing the powers attributed to Thor and unable to be materially explained would falsify bluegenes theory whatever else the scientific community did or did not say.

Because it would show beyond all doubt that the concept of the god Thor was based on something real rather than being sourced from human imagination or embellishment in the way that bluegenes theory predicts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1627 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2011 3:59 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


(2)
Message 1653 of 1725 (632848)
09-10-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1645 by Chuck77
09-10-2011 6:22 AM


Re: Brain function
It was a simple study that says

Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity

Well yes. This is because what they are producing is not language, as was stated by the article:

And when people have done linguistic analyses of speaking in tongues, it does not correspond to any clear linguistic structure. So it seems to be distinct from language itself.

So, they're not using the language centers of their brain to produce something that is not language.

I missed the point where this suggests a miracle rather than being bleedin' obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1645 by Chuck77, posted 09-10-2011 6:22 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1654 of 1725 (632893)
09-11-2011 1:27 AM


Still Delusional
bluegenes writes:

If my theory is 100% correct, then we should not have found a method of positively detecting their presence, because detecting the presence of non-existent entities would be impossible. And so far, this is the case.

This gem Message 162 is the most recent comment in the the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)

Goodness gracious god almighty. First off it's incredible that he thinks this is HIS theory. Come on dude. You know how many people think the same exact thing and can't back it up? ***See Richard dawkins and his diciples***

I'll also point out (for the umpteenth time) that scientific theories are not weakened by unsupported propositions that contradict them.

Yeah, no kidding. Similarily, they are strengthened with evidence and are able to actually test the hypothesis too. Something that has obviously not taken place in this instance.

If some people on the peanut thread believe that some neurological phenomena or spectacular meteorological phenomena (like hurricanes and tornadoes) are caused by supernatural beings, their Faith alone does not support a claim that my theory is weak

I think bluegenes actually IS Richard Dawkins. Just because bluegenes says " SN beings don't exist because I said so, so just show me one and it will falsify MY claim, you can't I win" doesn't make it so.

He actually NEEDS to demonstrate that what he says is true just like a Tornado doesn't neccesarily prove the existance of the SN. How can he test this? He Can't.

Why is bluegenes excluded from coming up with any evidence or support for his claims? Why is he so special?

Those extraordinary claims require considerable support in order to weaken the theory, and extraordinary support in order to falsify it.

Incredible.

bluegenes writes:

Those extraordinary claims require considerable support

YEAH NO KIDDING.

bluegenes writes:

and extraordinary support in order to falsify it.

LOL. Yep, leave all the hard work to us. Sit back, enjoy a cold one, while we're left to do your work for you.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1657 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 9:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 1659 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2011 11:09 AM Chuck77 has responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 1655 of 1725 (632902)
09-11-2011 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1645 by Chuck77
09-10-2011 6:22 AM


Re: Brain function
It was a simple study that says
Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity

Indeed, and where does it say anywhere in the results that god has any involvement? Was it supposed of be in the part you quoted from the paper? Because if so then the 'Fail' is all on your side, unless you can actually explain how it is supporting evidence of course.

I'm also unclear why you don't realise the benefit of referring back to the actual paper rather than a partial 2nd hand report on it. Especially unclear since you yourself took a portion of the paper as a quote to use in your response. Of course if you cared about the research rather than how it was propagandised then you could have given us a link to it yourself, but I guess you only want us to get the adulterated version.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1645 by Chuck77, posted 09-10-2011 6:22 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1656 by Chuck77, posted 09-11-2011 4:38 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1656 of 1725 (632903)
09-11-2011 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1655 by Wounded King
09-11-2011 3:56 AM


Re: Brain function
No problem. I'll explain it to you. The point of the article was not to show that God is behind this phenomena(even tho I believe He is) it was to demonstrate that brain function tests work both ways. Not only for the hypothetical non-existance of the SN when it comes to religious experiences.

Have you asked PaulK to cite any hypothetical Science studies on the brain that prove all religious experiences are due to natural functions?

Or are you just critiqing the ones you don't agree with?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1655 by Wounded King, posted 09-11-2011 3:56 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1658 by Wounded King, posted 09-11-2011 11:03 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 1657 of 1725 (632927)
09-11-2011 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1654 by Chuck77
09-11-2011 1:27 AM


Re: Still Delusional
Hi again Chuck77, thanks.

It gets tiresome to reply to the same old drivel while waiting for something of substance to actually be presented that is worthy of response, something like actual evidence substantiating the hypothetical conjecture.

LOL. Yep, leave all the hard work to us. Sit back, enjoy a cold one, while we're left to do your work for you.

That is the way of the pseudoskeptic.

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 1654 by Chuck77, posted 09-11-2011 1:27 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1660 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2011 11:12 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 1658 of 1725 (632934)
09-11-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1656 by Chuck77
09-11-2011 4:38 AM


Re: Brain function
it was to demonstrate that brain function tests work both ways

In what way? I brought up a specific objection about the presentation of the research in the article you linked to and you have just been handwaving and waffling to apparently cover up the fact that indeed the article makes completely unsupported claims and pretends that the research supports them, but that's OK because you would like their unsupported claims to be true.

Or are you just critiqing the ones you don't agree with?

As I seem to keep having to point out to you, I'm not critiquing the study at all. I'm criticising the misrepresentation of the study by the source you provided.

All you seem to have shown is that when they want to misrepresent research people can do so, way to go, what a startling revelation.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1656 by Chuck77, posted 09-11-2011 4:38 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 764 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 1659 of 1725 (632935)
09-11-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1654 by Chuck77
09-11-2011 1:27 AM


Lesson for children and slow adults.
Chuck77 writes:

He actually NEEDS to demonstrate that what he says is true just like a Tornado doesn't neccesarily prove the existance of the SN. How can he test this? He Can't.

There's zero empirical support for the hypothesis that SBs cause tornadoes, or cause anything else for that matter. Are you presenting tornadoes as evidence against my theory?

I'll try to explain.

Currently, it is a very strong theory that the chimps are our closest living relatives.

Someone could make the suggestion that there could be a branch species which diverged from our lineage since the chimps that is still surviving deep in some forest somewhere; perhaps Erectus or another earlier hominid. Hypothetically, that's not impossible.

However, the suggestion (or a stronger claim by someone that they firmly believed or knew such a species to be extant) would not in itself weaken the "chimp" theory in any way. It would be necessary to find good supporting evidence of the existence of such a creature to weaken the theory, and it would be necessary to actually establish its existence to falsify the "chimp" theory.

RAZD has been making "suggestions" that would contradict my theory. You have claimed to know of the existence of a specific supernatural being (rather like someone claiming to know that the mysterious hominids in the example above exist). What neither of you can do is establish your alternative "hypotheses" or claims with good empirical evidence. I can't find any supportive empirical evidence for them either. Neither can any other participant on this thread.

What I'm pointing out here is that contradicting claims can be made against any scientific laws and theories. They are of no use as a basis for criticizing a theory or law unless they have proper empirical support.

Human invention remains the only source of the ideas and descriptions that we have in our heads of supernatural beings knowable to all of us and known to science. While that remains the case, I have a very strong theory.

The very fact that both you and RAZD have made numerous posts expressing strong personal desires to criticize the theory, but have completely failed to offer any empirical evidence of the existence of SBs outside human minds makes my point for me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1654 by Chuck77, posted 09-11-2011 1:27 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1672 by Chuck77, posted 09-12-2011 5:30 AM bluegenes has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 764 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 1660 of 1725 (632937)
09-11-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1657 by RAZD
09-11-2011 9:46 AM


Re: Still Delusional
RAZD writes:

That is the way of the pseudoskeptic.

Name calling (and unsubstantiated counterclaims) does not weaken or falsify theories.

Edited by bluegenes, : grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1657 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 9:46 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 1661 of 1725 (632961)
09-11-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1651 by Straggler
09-10-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
Hi Straggles

Is it possible to have knowledge in the absence of certainty?

No, because to have knowledge (or to believe one has knowledge) one needs to be 100% certain.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know

quote:
know
verb
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

Nothing tentative there, no modification of certainty, the situation is fully understood, and is seen as fact or truth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

quote:
knowl•edge
noun
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles , as from study or investigation;general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

Nothing tentative there, no modification of the "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles" or the "state of knowing."

Is it possible to acquire tentative knowledge as a result of scientific investigation?

Your latest word combination is as meaningless as many that have preceded it -- there is no "tentative knowledge" there is only tentative possibility that a conclusion is true, and tentative certainty in the results.

It is possible to acquire tentative certainty as a results and conclusions of scientific investigation. The more it is tested, the greater the certainty, but the conclusions will always be tentative.

Bertrand Russel writes:

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

Amen to that eh?

Amusingly, he doesn't talk about "tentative knowledge" -- he talks about acceptance of scientific conclusions, and when he says "one should not regard anything one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree" then he is saying what I have been saying -- that you can have different degrees of confidence in the results.

Dawkins Scale writes:

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

NOTE: "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Amusingly this really says there is uncertainty and that it is your opinion regarding the probability, your belief, your assumption, and not a tested empirical basis. This is really no different than 5, you just pretend that it is, and pretend to have a level of confidence that is not supported by empirical evidence. This is an essential problem with the scale Dawkins presented, it is based on a false belief in being able to actually have some idea of the various probabilities. I discarded this scale long ago due to these inherent problems in actually being able to measure degrees of belief and apply them to the scale. It's a pseudoscientific scale, because you can't actually measure your level of belief.

NOTE: "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

In other words you live your life based on your personal beliefs, opinions and world view, on the assumption that they are correct. Curiously, everyone does this.

And you still have not presented any objective empirical evidence to support your assertions and opinion for probability. How do you determine "very improbable" without some basis where you have actually tested the possibilities rather than just assume your opinion/s are correct?

The difference between a 5 and a 6 is that 5's don't delude themselves that they know something they do not know.

ALL evidence based knowledge is tentative RAZ. As long as you deny this you will continue to foolishly describe belief in the existence of gods as equivalent to things like knowledge of what a pen will do if dropped.

Correction: ALL evidence based conclusions are tentative Straggles. As long as you deny this you will continue to foolishly describe belief that god/s don't exist as equivalent to things like the certainty of what a pen will do if dropped.

You can test for what happens when you drop a pen, but how do you test for the presence or absence of supernatural essences? Do you have a test methodology that you have tested and confirmed as much as the test methodologies for gravity, such that you have empirical confidence in being able to record a positive detection, as the test methodologies for gravity provide?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical

quote:
em•pir•i•cal
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confidence

quote:
con•fi•dence
noun
1. full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing: We have every confidence in their ability to succeed.
2. belief in oneself and one's powers or abilities; self-confidence; self-reliance; assurance: His lack of confidence defeated him.
3. certitude; assurance: He described the situation with such confidence that the audience believed him completely.

... I have empirical confidence in the data, the objective evidence, the test results and the conclusions of science.

In addition, I also have confidence that an open-minded yet skeptical approach to new ideas/concepts/hypothesis can lead to new possibilities of scientific results

I do NOT, however, have confidence that a close-minded or false skeptical(1) approach to new ideas/concepts/hypothesis can lead to new possibilities of scientific results

And, I do NOT have empirical confidence in the lack of data, the subjective evidence, the untested results claimed, and the unfounded conclusions of non-science, personal beliefs, pseudoscience, opinions, and pseudoskepticism.

If you do not have comparable test equipment, methodology and proven results, then you cannot compare [results] from testing gravity to the [absence of results] from not testing for supernatural presence.

Enjoy.

(1) - From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

quote:
According to Richard Cameron Wilson, some advocates of discredited intellectual positions (such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial) engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a preexisting belief.[5] Wilson argues that the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".[6]

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 1651 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2011 3:50 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1662 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2011 4:16 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 1675 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2011 7:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Modulous
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 1662 of 1725 (632963)
09-11-2011 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1661 by RAZD
09-11-2011 3:40 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
No, because to have knowledge (or to believe one has knowledge) one needs to be 100% certain.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know

Ah, the entire field of epistemology settled by an online dictionary

We know that the world is over 4 billion years old. 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. This is resolved by understanding knowledge in the context of the principle of fallibilism. Without it, there is nothing we possess that can be called knowledge about the physical world, which is accessed through a biased and imperfect filter (our percetion/sensory system). Since we want to say some things are knowledge, we either adopt a weaker definition of knowledge than being 'a justified true thing which is believed' or we use an alternative, more pragmatic, definition of truth (such as with the imperfect criteria for truth)

Either way, there is a giving way to tentativity that can be expressed when we say we know something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1661 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 3:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1666 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 9:28 PM Modulous has responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1909
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 1663 of 1725 (632965)
09-11-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1648 by RAZD
09-10-2011 8:30 AM


Re: the bluegenes\straggler failure
RAZD writes:
Consider Ben Franklin with his kite flying in a storm and no means to measure electricity. Can he claim that electricity is present in the lightening?Can he claim that electricity is not present in the lightening? OR is there insufficient evidence to determine whether or not electricity is present?

Off topic here in the discussion of bluegenes theory, but might I ask you if you have any ideas what might constitute the equivalent of Ben's key? Objectively, without any contaminating world-view prejudice?

Oh....who am i Kidding......I know - it's "I don't know"........

So if you were in the swamps of Louisiana and saw an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, you would automatically discount the experience as an hallucination because it happened to you and there is nothing special about you?

...actually, to get on to the right sensory input, wasn't most of that evidence in audio recordings? I wait to see better evidence...but - again, YIELDING TO THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD (Straggler, take note), I'll take it tentatively....


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1648 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 8:30 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1909
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 1664 of 1725 (632967)
09-11-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1651 by Straggler
09-10-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence
Straggler posts:
Bertrand Russel writes:

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

Amen to that eh?

I really don't think RAZD, here, would disagree....

ALL evidence based knowledge is tentative RAZ. As long as you deny this you will continue to foolishly describe belief in the existence of gods as equivalent to things like knowledge of what a pen will do if dropped.

...Clever - but not really - it's another example of how you finish, by a crudest extrapolation, your adversary's arguments to suit your own agenda and then whip the shit out of them using this constructed conclusion. This goes beyond our normal definition of STRAWMAN. You are, and have been constantly, in this forum, someone who draws premature conclusions and then, convinced that they are true as you state them, use them to build further "logical" attacks on them in a Cheneyesque way. Please - you are better than this.

Show me where he claimed ALL evidence based knowledge is not tentative!!!!!!!!!!!!!


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1651 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2011 3:50 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1665 by Panda, posted 09-11-2011 5:34 PM xongsmith has not yet responded
 Message 1686 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2011 5:32 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1999 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 1665 of 1725 (632969)
09-11-2011 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1664 by xongsmith
09-11-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence
xongsmith writes:

Show me where he claimed ALL evidence based knowledge is not tentative!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RAZD may not have explicitly stated it before Straggler's message, but he definitely did later on.

RAZD writes:

to have knowledge (or to believe one has knowledge) one needs to be 100% certain.


Message 1661

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1664 by xongsmith, posted 09-11-2011 5:00 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019