|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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:
Mark24's opinion is just that - An 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 Visitations Regarding the LOGICAL POSSIBILITY of alien visitations - Yes I do agree that the logc is the same even if the objective factors involved in determining probability are very different. DING! 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:
It seems that we have moved onto stage 2 of the theists playbook "My subjective evidence is as relevant as your objective 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 Matters Don't give us the "love argument". Love does not exist distinctly or seperately to those who experience it. BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! 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.
onifre, message 160 writes: I think the point RAZD was trying to make to me in that post was that there are experiences that lack objective evidence that we can point to definitively, yet are still experienced in the physical reality. 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.
Straggler, message 178 writes: ANY possibility, no matter how practically improbable, derived from evidence is NON-equivalent to the IPU.ANY possibility which is NOT derived from ANY evidence IS equivalent to the IPU. 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: 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? 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.
Straggler, message 178 writes: ANY possibility, no matter how practically improbable, derived from evidence is NON-equivalent to the IPU.ANY possibility which is NOT derived from ANY evidence IS equivalent to 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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So "No" is the answer to your question. 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.
No. 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.
And people who have experienced the IPU may well change heir minds regarding the actual existence of the IPU. So what? What is your point? 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?
I do not believe the in the actuality of entities for which there is no objective evidential reason to think even might exist. As you do. 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.
"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is NOT my position. No matter how much you assert or wish it to be. 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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If I did know anyone who claimed to have been genuinely "touched" by the IPU would it really change anything? Yes, for that person. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It absolutely baffles me as to why you think such "evidence" is any more reliable in other circumstances?
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?
No.There is a clear and evident distinction between those concepts that have no evidential basis whatsoever and those that do. 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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
see reply here
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Concepts either have an objective evidential basis or they do not. This much at least is black and white. Lets be frank here. Even you seem to have given up the ghost on this topic. The IPU and the possibility of alien life are not evidentially equivalent. The IPU and deities are. Given that the IPU was specifically created for the purpose of demonstrating the irrationality and illogic of belief in the unevidenced it would be surprising if this were not so. 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.
People seem to have an almost limitless capacity for creating concepts that are not 'real'. It comes to us as easily as breathing. 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.
There is a sliding scale of evidence. All conclusions are based on evidence and subjective world view. 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.
But everything we know suggests that such claims are human inventions ... And it is possible that there is something there. Thus the logical answer is still "I don't know" ...
Why do you reject the IPU out of hand? Because it is so obviously made up? Absolutely. I could not agree more. 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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
By your own admission it is an objectively evidenced fact that gods are quite possibly the product of human invention. There is no objective evidence to suggest that gods are anything other than the product of human invention. 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 this is to contradict yourself. To deny your own experience is to contradict yourself. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : add Edited by RAZD, : added by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Percy
It is only as a shared interpretation develops that objectivity emerges. Agreed.
Objectivity also requires reliably establishing that all are interpreting the same phenomenon, something not possible with internal spiritual experience. So while you can claim shared interpretation as support for your spiritual beliefs, so can literally billions of others for different spiritual beliefs, completely invalidating all such claims. And the inability to establish that common spiritual beliefs are actually about the same phenomenon completely removes the possibility of any objectivity. 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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Percy
Scientifically it's only a valid hypothesis if you can answer affirmatively to the question "Is this objective?" 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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
To others you appear to be arguing that subjective approaches can lead to objective knowledge. No, not to objective knowledge, rather philosophy and tentative logical concepts
Discipline requires that we subject all hypotheses to rigorous objective analysis. 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: 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.
But a la Feynman we must recognize that the easiest person to fool is ourself, and that just because the way we happen to be made has in our minds set the "this is true" indicator for some cockamamie beliefs doesn't mean we're going to give them any credence. 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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And you can't argue that you're not seeking objective knowledge when you make understanding aspects of reality your goal. 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.
... you're just as utterly convinced that objective knowledge can be gained via subjective approaches, ... 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.
This is the position that Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot argument refuted long ago. 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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think confusion is arising because you're using a different definition of reality, and at times you may even be equivocating between two different definitions. In this discussion we need a word which means "that which is true and the same for everyone," and I've been using the word reality to mean this. I've been using reality to mean that which is true regardless of what you believe or think you know about reality.
But you're claiming there are aspects of reality that are subjective,... 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.
What you learn from your subjective studies may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone, and therefore it isn't true of, let me call it, objective reality. 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: And I rejected this as a false picture compared to the one objected to here:
quote: Perhaps a more palatable picture would be Where 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:
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, : possibly Edited by RAZD, : no by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Mod, but there are still some misconceptions here.
On the one hand he says that faith is "based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational.", and on the other hand he is trying to develop a rational and evidence based argument for his faith. 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.
However, I pointed out that the IPU was designed to show special pleading, and I think it is agreed that that special pleading must be involved in certain beliefs unless something extra is appealed to. So, finally, we are talking about the thing that RAZD thinks seperates the IPU, the Garage Dragon from the Leszi and Djinn: it seems to be RAZD's view that nobody has had any subjective experiences of the IPU or Garage Dragon (though I'm sure that this isn't entirely true, myself) whereas the latter (and other entities such as deities), have. The IPU therefore has allowed us to identify RAZD's argument in favour of the existence of a deity so that this argument can be critically examined. 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:
percy writes: Message 246: It is only as a shared interpretation develops that objectivity emerges. Objectivity also requires reliably establishing that all are interpreting the same phenomenon, something not possible with internal 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 writes: Message 264: You cannot turn something false into something true by careful phrasing. Increasing our understanding of objective reality cannot be achieved via subjective methods because by their very nature their conclusions are not true for everyone. 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.
And so the IPU argument has emerged victorious from this thread, to be used again when we need to get past 'faith' as an answer to a question from somebody. Excuse me while I go pat myself on the back. 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: 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?
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.
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: 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 A1D 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, : , by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Mod.
Yes, that is trivially true. If your only point is that there is some deterministic element behind belief and that is principally based around experience, you'd probably not find any dissent amongst the atheists. That doesn't seem to be what you are saying though. So, trying to tie this into the topic somehow - are you are arguing that subjective experiences count as evidence when it comes to faith based positions or not? If not, I don't see the relevance of you bringing it up. If you are, then that seems to run counter to what you wrote a few paragraphs earlier about faith and evidence and reason. 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.
Why is none needed? Because the IPU is raised when somebody argues that there is no evidence or rationale for believing in the entity that they do, that it is just accepted on pure faith. This is special pleading and it can be shown by raising the IPU. Shortly after raising the IPU or similar entities, we find that pure faith gets kicked out of bed and all sorts of reasons and claims of evidence are forthcoming. 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.
Yes, that is trivially true. If your only point is that there is some deterministic element behind belief and that is principally based around experience, you'd probably not find any dissent amongst the atheists. That doesn't seem to be what you are saying though. Then we can agree that any belief that falls in this category cannot be considered of the same class as the IPU.
To briefly repeat: if you want to argue that you avoid special pleading with an appeal to evidence, no matter how dodgy that evidence, you are welcome to try that route out. 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.
I've had subjective experiences of Leszi, such that for a (relatively short) period of time, I believed that they existed. I have friends who have likewise had experiences that mean they believe in Djinn. Out of curiousity, if we replaced the IPU with Leszi or Djinn (so that we can sidestep your issues with subjective experience) how would you respond to the argument then? 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. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024