Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Hi Straggler,Forgive me if I do a little summary to get back into this thread. I see that some interesting conversation has gone on in my absence, so I think this is a necessary step at this point in the thread. You'll orgive me, I trust, if I also borrow from the thread this was a spin off from, because they do overlap.(1) Mark24's opinion: DING!! Straggler finally gets the significance of the difference in opinions.The corollary, of course, is that your opinion is just that - An opinion. You have tried mightily to frame it as a logical result of evidence, but in the end it is just your subjective opinion, based on your world view.(2) Alien VisitationsDING! We come to agreement that your logical process includes alien visitations just as much as it include life on other planets.(3) The relative importance of relative evidence: BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!No, Straggler, just that it is as relevant as subjective evidence used elsewhere. That it may be prone to error and misinterpretation, that it cannot be tested, and can only validated by more similar subjective evidence from other people or invalidated by contrary objective evidence.I note that there is a vast difference between any evidence at all and "ALL empirical objective evidence" - a difference that in our courts of law is filled with subjective evidence when it is available. A person who has experience regarding the question under investigation can testify what they believe occurred. This does not mean that such testimony is necessarily true, nor does it mean that the court must use it in reaching a decision. It also often brings into question the character of the person/s presenting such evidence. In some cases you have several witnesses that can each testify as to what they observed, and the consistency of their testimony helps to bolster the validity of the evidence presented.Would you not agree that when we have run out of "ALL empirical objective evidence" that is available, that the existence of some subjective evidence does not mean there is an total absence of evidence?(4) Why Love MattersBZZZZZZZZZZZZT!You are attempting to limit the discussion only to the evidence that you find convincing, evidence that fits your world view, and thus leads to your frequent leaping to conclusions.Would you not agree that the experience of love changes you, changes how you behave in regards to one person over others? Would you not agree that this change in behavior is objective external evidence of this experience of love?I can only put your reluctance to consider subjective evidence, and what it shows, is due to your firm convictions in your world view. Please note that you have still not answered (that I have seen) whether you think the objective existence of claims by people of having seen aliens or spaceships could be taken as validating evidence for alien visitations that you have logically concluded could have occurred.The question is one of relative validity of experiences that cannot be confirmed by people who have not had a similar experience.One way to validate the experience is to have several people have the same or similar experiences, and there is evidence of this in alien visitation sighting.Another way to validate the experience is to see if it leads to changes in behavior and beliefs -- does this experience lead one to conclude that the probability of alien visitations is a higher probability or a lower probability compared to their belief/s before. Interestingly, I agree with this, with the additional stipulation that "evidence" here is not restricted to "empirical objective evidence" so that the existence of some subjective evidence is fundamentally different from an absence of ANY evidence and that you cannot equivocate from one to the other.As I said to onifre in Message 174, the next question to address is whether such belief in alien visitations involves special pleading (I believe X but not Y but cannot say whY), or does the experience qualify as a causal agent for changing their mind?

quote:

---

It should be noted that the Principle of Relevant Difference does allow people to be treated differently. For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very prodictive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productive of each is a relevant difference between them. Since it can be reasonable to treat people differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill's turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be a case of Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner (this, of course, assumes that Bill does not accept a standard that requires people to cook dinner regardless of the circumstances). In this case Bill is offering a good reason as to why he should be exempt and, most importantly, it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.

​

While determing what counts as a legitimate basis for exemption can be a difficult task, it seems clear that claiming you are exempt because you are you does not provide such a legitimate basis. Thus, unless a clear and relevant justification for exemption can be presented, a person cannot claim to be exempt.

---

I would say that an experience, even if it cannot be confirmed, is a Relevant Difference between people who have, and those who have not had, that experience.Another way we can measure the importance of experience is by how much it affects your life - is your behavior changed from before the experience?
Belief_(before) + experience &rarr Belief_(after) ≠ Belief_(before)I would agree that people who have changed their beliefs subsequent to an experience means that their subsequent belief is different fundamentally from postulated beliefs in the IPU or similar arguments, because it is based on experience, and as far as I know that experience does not exist for the IPU. And thus I conclude that the beliefs of any person who has experienced what they claim is an alien visitation, and who have subsequently altered their behaviors and beliefs, qualifies as a "...possibility, no matter how practically improbable, derived from evidence is NON-equivalent to the IPU." There is a causal agent for belief in alien visitations - experience - that occurs before change in belief, and which is lacking in the case of the IPU.Do you not agree? (how's that cognitive dissonance going?)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) • • •

Sorry Straggler, but you still can't force it.Curiously you still have not answered whether people that claim to have seen alien visitations can be interpreted as validation for the probability of alien visitations. Is it not probable that some of the alien visitations would be seen in some way?A simple yes or no will do for starters. One wonders if the reluctance to answer such a simple question is due to cognitive dissonance. Maybe it's time to explore your mind and your conclusions?Do you, or do you not, think people that have had such visitation experiences would change their minds in favor of the probability of alien visitations relative to their position previously?These are simple questions.If increasing the number of planets increases the probability of life on other planets, does not increasing the numbers of people who have had similar experiences increase the probability of what they are claiming as true?I must say I am disappointed in both your and mod's replies - more like hard-line fundamentalists than open-minded skeptics, repeating tired old party lines rather than addressing the issue. You have just repeated a post without making any change whatsoever in your fundamentalist argument. Modulus quotes a mockery of "scripture" and with onifre we are back to the old "people make things up" excuse -- which is just about as explanatory as "god-did-it" -- and that takes as a tacit assumption that anything that contradicts your world view is made up.You all keep telling me that atheists are open-minded quasi-agnostics and just have not seen sufficient convincing evidence -- while building up the barricades.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) • • •

Which contradicts your logical extrapolation on the possibility of alien visitation. What you are confronting is your readiness to completely and entirely dismiss any all subjective experiences as fabrications of the mind, while the logical extenuation from evidence reaching the same conclusion finally (after much teeth pulling) got a "yes" -- because of your readiness to value logic and deduction no matter how tenuous.I figured it would be. You don't want to be inspected for why yes on one question and no on the other when they are the same end result - the probability of alien visitations being observed. I can understand that. Cognitive dissonance works that way. Well, curiously that is the point. Do you know of any? Not the kind of fabrication Mod made, but actual documented experiences? Experiences where people have changed their behavior or belief? When it comes to other peoples actual experiences, and not stuff they have made up, I maintain an open mind, so No I do not automatically reject all such claims. There is plenty of objective evidence of life changing experiences that cannot be explained by purely objective criteria. But, when you reject the possibilities of evidence before you start, you will never know.Do you or do you not agree that there is a large gray area between absolutely no evidence of any kind, and concepts that can be validated by objective, repeated experience?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) • • •

Yes, for that person.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) • • •

Black and white. No grey. Just like the fundamentalist creationist, it seems. I guess that means no real agnostic possibilities either, no matter how much it is claimed.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) • • •

see reply here

So have you found an IPU believer yet? Or are all the proponents still atheists?The difference between someone who sees an alien visitation, and a person who concludes that alien visitations are probable, is the experience, and curiously you think the former is nuts and that latter is sane and rational. And you have convinced yourself that anyone who sees something you don't believe has made it up. One wonders how any science gets done with all the science fiction surrounding us.People make everything up, Straggler. As onifre mentioned early on, there is no evidence that you do not know except by subjective recollection. You've made up the probability of life on alien planets. Yes there is a sliding scale, Straggler, and it extends into the area of subjective evidence, unavoidably.And when you have (or lack) an experience that I don't, then you will make different conclusions. And it is possible that there is something there. Thus the logical answer is still "I don't know" ... You don't get it Straggler. I reject the IPU because there is no one experience of the IPU that is documented, instead it is propped up by atheists as a mockery of belief. You asked if it would make a difference if someone had experienced the IPU, and I said yes - for that person. It would make a difference to that person because they would no longer be an atheist. So go find me one. Find me evidence of the experience.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) • • •

Some does not equal all and never will.What you are confusing is the various verbalizations of a concept being made up, while the reason for the concept remains.{added}In eliminating conceptualizations that are contradicted by objective evidence, the process is similar to what is done with theory. Here we have untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis, but can still have specific concepts invalidated. The reason for the hypothesis remains, so the hypothesis is amended to fit the new evidence. (/added)That reason is not made up no matter how much you try to force the issue.This gets back to world view issues, as within your own world view all your experiences are -- for you -- objective reality: you have experienced them. To deny your own experience is to contradict yourself.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addEdited by RAZD, : added

---

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) • • •

Thanks Percy Agreed. Or an experience involving UFO alien visitations.Agreed, the interpretatons are subject to scepticism, but different interpretations do not necessarily invalidate each other. The blind men and the elephant issue. All interpretations could very well be due more to a limitation in understanding than in ability to explain the experience. The lack of commonality of interpretation keeps this from becoming objective, per your earlier statement.There is also a common element of having the experience, rather than the interpretations of the experience, which are biased by cultural and educational factors and subjective bias. This does not mean that any one explanation is necessarily valid, just that the possibility of actual experience is a valid hypothesis. Thus the experience can be commonly shared while the interpretations are not.That small difference is sufficient for me to see a clear distinction between such experience based beliefs and concepts like the IPU which are not based on experience, but are a constructed straw man used in argument\debate to represent concepts without evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Percy Then you will be relieved to know that this is not what I am looking at doing, rather what I am looking for is methods that can be applied when science can no longer apply.I still find contradiction by objective reality to be a test to invalidate concepts, but the question is what we can consider when we have no invalidation and no objective evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

No, not to objective knowledge, rather philosophy and tentative logical concepts Which still applies to concepts derived from subjective evidence, so we can discard the irrelevant ones, like astrology.Look at the Perceptions of Reality thread:

quote:

---

Let me open up the discussion a bit by first proposing the whole playing field of human knowledge and perceptions of reality, in very general terms, using these definitions from Dictionary.com:

​

science (click)

1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
.. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
.. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

​

philosophy (click)

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

​

faith (click)

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

​

If I were to draw a picture of this it would be something like this:

​

One could say that {all} science includes knowledge we that we are pretty sure we know, that {all} philosophy includes knowledge that we think we can know, and that {all} faith includes knowledge we cannot know that we know (hence we take it on faith).

​

There is nothing within science that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} philosophy or other, and there is nothing within philosophy that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} faith or other.

​

However, not all of this knowledge is true to reality.

​

There are many religions that are exclusive of other religions, so logically they cannot all be true as conceived (although it is possible they could all be close to the reality, just in different ways).

​

Philosophy based on logic is true if the precepts are true, but how do we know if the precepts are true? There are some philosophies that contradict or oppose other philosophies.

​

We also know that science has a tendency of finding new evidence that invalidates previous theories and shows new theories and understandings to be more valid, but because we cannot prove a theory in science we cannot know that we know.

​

So how can we judge the validity of perceptions of reality?

---

We can test concepts against objective reality to see if they are contradicted, but are there any other tests of the validity of concepts that we can use?Logically, if invalidation is the only test of reality, then concepts that are not invalidated are possible reflections of reality.Where concepts are (seemingly) contradictory, yet neither is contradicted, we can investigate for logical consistency of the concept/s and common aspects. Correct, people judge the credibility of concepts based on their personal world view first. The typical fundamentalist mind-set seems to stop at that point - confirmation bias acceptance of congruent concepts and cognitive dissonance rejection of incongruent concepts - while open-minded skepticism investigates further.This process is more apparent in dealing with subjective evidence than when dealing with objective evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Assuming that reality is only what is objectively knowable, that reality is constrained to be what is objectively knowable. This would be like only looking under the streetlight for lost car keys because that is where you can see. No, please. Consider the diagram again, and step outside the magenta circle of scientific knowledge:You have left objective evidence behind, and with it objective knowledge, yet we still have many more concepts, ones based on consistent logic rather than evidence. Step outside the blue circle, and you have left logic behind. Some may feel this is like stepping off a cliff, or climbing a staircase made of sponge, but this is still part of knowledge, still based on concepts of reality, just some aspects of reality that may not be objectively knowable.The grey background would be reality. Concepts within the blue circle and within the green circle can still be true to that reality without being found in objective knowledge. And yet, like the IPU we have a concept that is an intellectual construct with no subjective evidence for it's existence. If we are trying to determine the validity of concepts that have subjective evidence for them, working our way out from the magenta circle to the next stage of knowledge, we would exclude both the celestial teapot and the IPU as not being concepts that involve subjective evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I've been using reality to mean that which is true regardless of what you believe or think you know about reality. No. I'm saying that there is probably aspects of reality that can never be known by scientific evaluation. Some of these aspects may be suggested by subjective evidence as possibly valid. And Mark keeps asking what I've concluded. All I've learned is that there are possibilities that cannot be ruled out by objective evidence, such as the visitations by aliens, and that there are common elements of many subjective experiences. If subjective evidence suggests possibilities, it does not make conclusions, just concepts that are more tentative than even those of science.Mr Jack objects to the diagram because his world view rejects faith, and Rahvin says science is not in any way a subset of "faith." It seems like I'm talking to a wall in this regard. I started the Perceptions of Reality thread with the comment that

quote:

---

Some here have contended that there are two opposing camps, each with set presuppositions that exclude elements of the other camp, making a picture something like this:

​

The area of overlap is the area of agreement, and the areas outside the overlap are the areas of contention.

---

And I rejected this as a false picture compared to the one objected to here:

quote:

---

The real question is how does one's personal view relate to {reality}, and how can we determine that (IF we can determine that)?

​

Let me open up the discussion a bit by first proposing the whole playing field of human knowledge and perceptions of reality, in very general terms, using these definitions from Dictionary.com:

​

science (click) ...

​

philosophy (click) ...

​

faith (click) ...

​

If I were to draw a picture of this it would be something like this:

​

One could say that {all} science includes knowledge we that we are pretty sure we know, that {all} philosophy includes knowledge that we think we can know, and that {all} faith includes knowledge we cannot know that we know (hence we take it on faith).

​

There is nothing within science that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} philosophy or other, and there is nothing within philosophy that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} faith or other.

---

Perhaps a more palatable picture would beWhere we have tested concepts for explaining reality, concepts that are logically possible explanations of reality, and concepts that are proposed as explanations of reality.Some people seem to react to "trigger words" (for creationists "evolution" is a trigger word, here it seems that "faith" is a trigger word) that trigger automatic negative reactions.We can go back to the original basic assumptions of science:

1. that there is an objective reality
2. that evidence of this objective reality exists
3. that concepts explaining reality can be tested by this evidence
4. that the evidence is objective if such testing can be repeated with the same results by anyone
5. concepts that are contradicted by such testing with evidence are invalidated as explanations of reality
6. that no concept can be proven to be true

Faith: 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.Belief: 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.These assumptions cannot be proven by logic (there are no self-evident truths), nor do they rest on material evidence (the existence of material evidence is assumed).We can talk about scientific theory being tentative, but the whole structure of science has a high degree of confidence in the validity of the process. There are, however, no proven truths. In other words, no matter how you cut the mustard, we have faith that what we consider reality is really (part of) reality.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : possiblyEdited by RAZD, : no

---

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) • • •

Thanks Mod, but there are still some misconceptions here. There is no on the "other hand" involved. This thread was created for the sole purpose of discussing levels of evidence while explicitly excluding any discussion of god/s. The beginning and the end of discussion of faith, as far as I am concerned, is totally and completely summed up in the words quoted above, taken from the Percy is a Deist thread: "based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational."What absolutely shocks me is the complete inability of people to deal with this thread without discussing god/s. On a pure and simple basis, any subjective evidence is a causal basis for a person believing what they experienced. Therefore any belief based on a subjective experience is not subject to special pleading.This was explored with the example of alien life on other planets and alien visitation to this planet, a subject with many reports of subjective experiences. It was agreed that we could logically derive the possibility of life on other planets even though there is absolutely zero evidence of this being the case. It was also agreed that this same logical process could be used to derive the possibility of alien visitations.The idea that the subjective experiences of many people of alien visitations could not be considered evidence of the possibility of alien visitations was completely rejected by some people, even though they conceded the logical possibility, and in spite of the fact that such observations would be a logical result of actual alien visitations.I find this bizarre.We also have the example of many subjective experiences that cannot be verified by objective evidence, and yet there is little problem with accepting the validity of the experience/s. One example mentioned on this is love, and another is the observation of a "shooting star" - both agreed as subjective experiences, and both accepted as being valid occurrences.What is clear to me, is that such subjective experiences are adequate evidence of a possibility of the experience being valid, but that is all that can be concluded from them. This is obviously mundanely true when you consider that your subjective experience can be confirmed as valid by later objective evidence: the photo in the paper of the shooting star showing the same location and taken at the same time as your observation.Percy talks about objective reality and objective evidence, but he starts with this basis: Thus we have multiple people observing a shooting star becoming evidence of objective reality, and the question becomes at what degree of repetition does this cross over from being a purely subjective singular experience to be a confirmed objective experience, or is there some other factor involved - subjective a priori assumptions about the validity of the evidence. Certainly, when we talk about the subjective experience of alien visitations there are instances of multiple observation and shared interpretations, yet we see these instance rejected by people that happily accept a similar degree of evidence for shooting stars. The difference in acceptance seems to rest more on the persons a priori acceptance of the possibility of the experience being valid (their world view), than on the existence of the evidence. Most people have observed shooting stars and most have all been told the same common explanation, and thus the probability of someone else seeing a shooting star is readily accepted.We also have multitudes of reports of people having the internal subjective experience of being in love, and while the specific experience itself cannot be shared, the experience is common enough that people accept this as a valid example of reality. That people fall in love is an accepted aspect of objective reality, as we have a shared interpretation of the experience, and sufficient description of the experience that we agree that we are all interpreting the same phenomenon.On a pure and simple basis, any subjective evidence is a causal basis for a person believing what they experienced. It is also obviously observably true that people making claims of being in love or of observing alien visitations believe this to be true, and that their acceptance of the possibility is based on their experience. Percy (and others) confuse/d this with trying to 'prove' objective reality with subjective evidence, or that I am claiming there is a subjective reality. The problem is that objective and subjective are NOT a dichotomy, as you can have subjective experience of objective evidence, as in the shooting star example.What we have is a question about the perceptions of reality, as discussed on the Perceptions of Reality thread, and as introduced again here.What is clear to me, is that such subjective experiences are adequate evidence of a possibility of the experience being valid, but that is all that can be concluded from them. It is also clear to me that this in no way implies that our understanding of objective reality is not increased by this possibility. It is also clear to me that this is not implying that there are subjective realities.Reality is what is. What we know about it is limited by our (tentative scientific) objective knowledge, as the signature says ("we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand") but this does not mean that reality is limited to just that knowledge. And so I repeat: I'm saying that there is probably aspects of reality that can never be known by scientific evaluation. Some of these aspects may be suggested by subjective evidence as possibly valid. It is also clear to me that this in no way implies that our understanding of objective reality is not increased by this possibility. It is also clear to me that this is not implying that there are subjective realities.There is (tentative scientific) objective reality, and then there is the rest of it. The question is what the rest of reality includes. You will excuse me if I chuckle whenever you do, as it is only "victorious" for those who came with the a priori assumption that it was "victorious" as no evidence of people believing in IPU's as a result of subjective experience has been presented. The claims that such exist are as empty as many a creationist claim of having evidence to support a position that remains unsupported by evidence. Message 1:

quote:

---

The argument usually goes something like this:

1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
2. There is no evidence for immaterial pink unicorns.
   ​
   ∴ therefore, you should believe in immaterial unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.

---

Does the subjective evidence for alien visitation sightings make a difference between believing in the validity of the experience versus believing in the existence of immaterial pink unicorns?

• shooting star personal experience &rArr personal belief in the possibility of shooting stars
  ​
• alien visitation personal experience &rArr personal belief in the possibility of alien visitations
  ​
• immaterial pink unicorn lack of personal experience &rArr lack of any documented personal belief in the possibility of immaterial pink unicorns

The IPU is not the same as the others, so no special pleading to believe in shooting stars or alien visitations.What we have seen is the discussion revolves more about what is "acceptable" evidence than whether there is a possibility of the experience being suggestive of the possibility of the experience being valid, and that the acceptability of evidence is based on subjective world views of different people.

people with personal experience of shooting stars believe in the possibility of shooting stars

​

people with personal experience of alien visitations believe in the possibility of alien visitations

​

Therefore, on a pure and simple logical basis, any subjective evidence is a causal basis for a person believing what they experienced. It is also obviously observably true that people making claims of observing shooting stars or alien visitations believe this to be true, and that their acceptance of the possibility is based on their experience.

​

What is clear to me, is that such subjective experiences are adequate evidence of a possibility of the experience being valid, but that is all that can be concluded from them. It is also clear to me that this in no way implies that our understanding of objective reality is not increased by this possibility. It is also clear to me that this is not implying that there are subjective realities.

​

The IPU (Russel's Teapot, Garage Dragon, etc) lacks this support for possible existence, so they are not logically comparable arguments.

​

The logical problem still remains of comparing beliefs from Message 7

​

quote:

---

But the real comparison is that

​

C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = D

​

And you cannot logically say that C = D or C ≠ D because you don't know.

---

​

​

We have seen that C (IPU) and D (alien visitations) are both members of A (the class of objects with no convincing objective objective evidence) and we have seen that they are differentiated by the existence of subjective evidence for D that is lacking for C, so A is divided into to two subareas: A₁ (no evidence of any kind) and A₂ (subjective experience evidence only).

​

Rather obviously (to me anyway) the solitary subjective experience of a shooting star does not mean that I need to believe in alien visitations, rather it is the documented existence of subjective experiences for alien visitations that lead me to conclude that such are possibly valid experiences.

​

No such basis exists to incline me to believe in the possible validity of the IPU.

​

C is an example of A₁
D is an example of A₂
A₁ ≠ A₂
Therefore C ≠ D for any C that is an example of A₁ and any D that is an example of A₂

​

It does not matter what C or D are.

​

Enjoy.

​

Edited by RAZD, : exist

​

Edited by RAZD, : love is

​

Edited by RAZD, : ,

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Mod. What I have been doing is investigating what can be concluded by reason and logic, with subjective evidence. It seems to me that the most one can conclude is a possibility of the subjective evidence being true, regardless of what the evidence involves.Thus we have Loch Ness and an experience of {something} that has been blown up into the Lake Ness Monster. While it becomes increasingly difficult to conclude that a cryptozooic plesiosaur was responsible, we don't know if this represents the original experience or what has been conflated by urban legend myth making.Using straggler's application of logical extrapolation from know life on earth, it is logical to believe that the creature could have been a cryptozooic plesiosaur, and thus we see that logical extrapolations from known evidence without any confirming evidence for the extrapolation is just as prone to error as assuming that subjective experience must be true.Then we have the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, believed to be extinct (like the cryptozooic plesiosaur), but with a number of subjective experiences providing evidence of the possibility of continued existence.We also see that some fairly large animals have been discovered recently (in Viet Nam iirc).When we get to the issue of alien life, we see straggler argue that it is logical based on known life on earth, and that the logical extrapolation, no matter how tenuous or convoluted it becomes, means that belief in alien life is rational, being "evidentially based" in spite of the fact that there is no, zero, zip, nada, confirmatory evidence of life forming on other planets.We see that taking this approach to the logical extreme, normal for testing the validity of any logical argument, results in the concept that aliens could have visited earth, and a further logical conclusion would be that if this were so, that then there would be observations of this happening. By this logic we can conclude that sightings of alien visitations are a possibility.Then we see that the reports of alien visitation observations could be seen as validating evidence for this logical extrapolation.Thus I conclude that subjective can indicate possibility. I also conclude that nothing more can be concluded. The problem that I have with this, is that if the IPU argument only applies to belief of "pure faith" that then it is not a general logical argument, it only applies in one situation, and that makes the argument itself one of special pleading. I've started another thread to discuss "pure faith" so we can extract this element from this thread.This is where we get back to the issue of belief based on subjective evidence as opposed to belief by "pure faith" and that the subjective evidence is a causal agent for any such belief. Then we can agree that any belief that falls in this category cannot be considered of the same class as the IPU. The fact remains that a subjective experience is "real" to the person who experienced it, and whether they believe they saw a black cat cross the road, a meteor or a monster in Loch Ness, they have a belief based on that experience. Having an experience is justification for believing that what you experienced occurred. You may find a better explanation later, but at the time, believing the experience was the best explanation you had of what occurred.Likewise experiences of cyrptozooic creatures or aliens.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) • • •