|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pseudoskepticism and logic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
[qs]
If we ASSUME that "the model works" is Rrhainian obfustication for "strong atheism works" then you have made a claim that is not neutral to the issue of god/s but asserts a negative claim. That's quite correct, logically speaking. People usually think that a negative claim is much better than a positive one. But look at the moon conspiracy. They claim we didn't go to the moon. Your opening message seems completely sound as it's easily provable. The problem is that most people, UNLIKE you, don't study logic to any meaningful "standard", because they are more interested in their ideology, and biases.
People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position. Good point. One point of interest is that a similar example of a kind of counter intuitive position, is again the moon claim. Although it is more "likely", by most standards, that we didn't go to a foreign planet, rather than simply the easy option of faking it, the negative claims of the conspiracy theorists are still false nevertheless.
I ran across this today, and for some reason it reminds me of a certain person (or two) here. There are many here, who take the easy position of sitting there and merely attacking everything anyone offers, without actually doing any work for themselves. They will provide facts to support their popularly accepted arguments, because somebody else has done all the work for them. They get frustrated, and sloppy, and strawmans and ad hominem attacks usually follow. Good to read you, I will read more of the topic now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
Hi Rrhain,
I'll keep this brief because essentially the same conversation is going on here with RAZD, and from what I can tell my position doesn't differ significantly from his.
quote: No, I don't claim this. People do make stuff up but not all the time. They are also capable of accurately assessing the truth, otherwise there would be no such thing as science.
quote: As I've said several times in this ongoing debate, the evidence would seem to suggest that humans have a propensity for developing spiritual beliefs. While the validity of particular beliefs is a separate debate, IMO there is possibly some underlying reality that people are interpreting in ways that make it more readily accessible and understandable to them. Please prove to me that this stance is any less valid than "people make stuff up so all theistic beliefs are made up."
quote: Firstly, the topic of this thread is pseudoskepticism; that is, assuming that the negative (or null) hypothesis is correct without recognising an obligation to provide evidence for this assumption. Secondly, it would seem to me that we are all able to talk about something called spirituality, without getting into semantic misunderstandings. We may not agree on what that is but if we had no concept of it at all then we'd have difficulty using the word.
quote: But this isn't how the scientific methods works, is it? You don't design an experiment thinking, "I don't think this thing I'm (or you're) looking for actually exists." The only way to avoid confirmation bias is to keep an open mind -- that is, to be as agnostic as possible. Actually I can't stress this enough. There are serious, well-qualified scientists out there doing research into the paranormal, and others who will admit to being interested in such subjects off the record but who fear damage to their reputations if they admit it publicly, and what they're up against is a cadre of vocal pseudoskeptics (many of whom are not even scientists) who continually insist that the reality of such phenomena is patently absurd. How is it any different to insist that the idea of a god is patently absurd without appropriate evidence to back up the claim? Case in point -- I've given this example before but I think there are people here who didn't read it, and I don't remember anyone replying to it directly. You find a way to travel back in time, to the middle ages. You decide that you're going to enlighten the people with your scientific knowledge, but (for whatever reason) you did not bring any of your apparatus with you. You tell them that their bodies are made up of many, many little things called cells; they'll have to take your word for it because it's impossible to see them. You also tell them that there are these cells called bacteria that live all over and inside your body and which actually outnumber your own body's cells, only you can't see those either. And there are these molecules called DNA, made up of things called atoms, which are responsible for the reproduction of those cells . . . and so on. Look at this from the point of view of the person you're trying to convince: you're insisting something is true but you are unable to prove it to them. And to them it sounds like the most absurd notion; their educated doctors would laugh at you. But the kicker here is . . . you are right. How are we to avoid situations like this ourselves, if we declare that the appropriate stance to take is "I won't believe it until you prove it to me?" Surely the truly skeptical position, the one more open to new facts, would be, "I can't be sure about that until you prove it to me"? My reaction to someone who described an IPU (or fairy or ghost or whatever) sighting is described in the "Immaterial Evidence" thread: Message 51 I'm not sure what else can be said because it feels like everyone's entrenched here and no one's going to budge. I'll keep my eye out for interesting new arguments though. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
Hi RAZD,
Thanks for the post. I don't know how you write consistently detailed and well reasoned responses when there are so many people arguing against you. I find it overwhelming when that happens to me.
quote: Yes I do believe there's a kernel of truth to the concept but I was reluctant to say so because I anticipated the response I'd get here. Maybe I ought to be braver and just put up with more guff. I didn't pursue the chi discussion either because I figured people would start trotting out studies that purport to prove that acupuncture is no better than placebo, etc. I'm sure you could find those if you looked but it would be a long debate to have to explain to closed-minded people why I accept the possible reality of chi despite that, and then we're getting into faults and bias in studies, and I've been there before . . . wasn't pleasant. It would make a refreshing change for me to join some science discussions here but usually that ground gets covered by people with more knowledge than me. I'm still banned from Herb Allure and I miss a good scientific debate. (Russ has been saying for about 6 weeks now that he'd "look into the issue," LOL.)
quote: I've always seen the label of pseudoskeptic applied to people who dismiss the possibility of the reality of paranormal phenomena, such as James Randi or Richard Wiseman. But I think its application to those who dismiss the possible existence of a god is also sound, as you've shown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Hi Linda
I've always seen the label of pseudoskeptic applied to people who dismiss the possibility of the reality of paranormal phenomena, such as James Randi or Richard Wiseman. But I think its application to those who dismiss the possible existence of a god is also sound, as you've shown. Always? Perhaps you should have read RAZD's O.P. carefully. It quotes from this: Internet Bunk - Skeptical Investigations of Rupert Sheldrake - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com "Pseudo-skeptic" just seems to have become a mudslinging term for the two sides involved in "paranormal" investigations to sling at each other. Just a way of saying: "you're biased and I'm objective". For example, you say: "But I think its application to those who dismiss the possible existence of a god is also sound, as you've shown". You could have equally applied it to all people who believe in a god, and think they're investigating theism/atheism seriously (I expect you agree with that). What do you think of the point that people from traditionally theistic cultures will frequently have a cultural bias in favour of theism in a theist/atheist debate/investigation? Doesn't it make sense? Considering that no actual evidence for gods is ever presented, why do so many consider a god so much more likely than centaurs or leprechauns? Wouldn't the true skeptic regard all zero evidence propositions as equally unlikely?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
LindaLou writes:
But you *can* prove it to them with an experiment. That is how we figured those things out in the first place, and when the experiment yields the results you predicted it would be evidence you are correct.
Look at this from the point of view of the person you're trying to convince: you're insisting something is true but you are unable to prove it to them. And to them it sounds like the most absurd notion; their educated doctors would laugh at you. But the kicker here is . . . you are right. LindaLou writes:
We don't! It would be ridiculous to behave any other way; what is more likely, that you are a time traveler or one of the many other crazy people who claim to be displaced in time? You seem to be equating "I don't believe you" with "I will ignore evidence", which is not the case at all. How are we to avoid situations like this ourselves, if we declare that the appropriate stance to take is "I won't believe it until you prove it to me?" Claims with no evidence to support them should be held in the same regard as any other of the infinite unevidenced claims that can be made about reality. There is no magical quality of simply voicing them that makes them any more likely to be true. You undoubtedly hold some things to be true about reality; things that are not on that list you *don't believe are real*. There really is no other option!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
I've always seen the label of pseudoskeptic applied to people who dismiss the possibility of the reality of paranormal phenomena, such as James Randi He dismisses it because there is no evidence. That is a skeptic not a psuedoskeptic. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I've always seen the label of pseudoskeptic applied to people who dismiss the possibility of the reality of paranormal phenomena, such as James Randi
He dismisses it because there is no evidence. That is a skeptic not a psuedoskeptic.
Ummm...this thread has it defined in the exact opposite way you are using it. Someone who dimisses it because there is no evidence, while not supporting the negetive claim, is defined as a psuedoskeptic, not a skeptic. The skeptic is the one who, because there is no evidence, claims to not know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
As far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong), all cultures have a spoken language. Would you consider this to be proof that language is not a product of the human mind (or proto-human) and instead based in a fundamental quality of the universe? I don't know about being a fundamental quality of the universe, and of course its not proof, but yeah, I think it suggests that language is not a product of the human mind. You could easily look at our non-human hominid ancestors and find language to see that it is not. We can even go past homonids and find something-that-could-be-called-language in other genera. Certainly, humans didn't produce the concept, nor the facilitation, of communication as it is something that gradually evolved. Or am I missing the point?
If so, how can you explain how they are so different in structure and use while maintaining some fundamental properties (distinction of subject, actions, speaker, etc..)? Yeah, I must be missing the point. What's so troublesome about that explanation? Can you elaborate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Do you seriously doubt the capacity of the human mind to invent the entire concept of supernatural gods? Why? A little, because basically there's just too much going on there. Although, I could be being too incredulous.... And there's also a terminology problem in that I don't see the unintentional gradual emergence of something as invention. Then there's the point of it being the "entire" concept, which I find improbable because from the range from simple to complex subjective experiences that people have had in regards to religions, I doubt that they could all be imaginary.
Why does the commonality you speak of not suggest a commonality of human psychology? A commonality of need for explanation or higher purpose? An explanation for desires, wants, needs. emotional support, etc. etc. etc. etc.......... If I was an atheist with a naturalistic approach, I see how these would be palatable explanations... but I'm not.
Explain to me how the possibility that the very concept of immaterial supernatural god(s) is better and more objectively evidentially explained by the actual existence of said immaterial and non-empirical entities than it is by the possibility of human misinterpretation and invention? That's a mouthful... How about: No. In the spirit of this thread, you know... providing support for the negetive claim, why don't you explain to me how the possibility that the very concept of immaterial supernatural god(s) is better and more objectively evidentially explained by the possibility of human misinterpretation and invention than it is by the actual existence of said immaterial and non-empirical entities. and don't use some mutually exclusive dicotomy. Show the evidence itself. ABE: Sorry, that was a little snarky. I forgot we were friends now. But I've lost interest (for right now today at least) in always being on the defense in these threads. For this thread, the atheists are suppost to be on the defense but it got turned around anyways. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Linda,
They are also capable of accurately assessing the truth, otherwise there would be no such thing as science. A good point, and one I brought up originally. What would be a good method (like that of science) for investigating said god/s? Would you agree, that if no method exists, then we should not consider the claim to be capable of being evidenced in reality?
As I've said several times in this ongoing debate, the evidence would seem to suggest that humans have a propensity for developing spiritual beliefs. Yes, but can you point to any evidence for the development of these spiritual beliefs that is outside of the human mind?
Firstly, the topic of this thread is pseudoskepticism; that is, assuming that the negative (or null) hypothesis is correct without recognising an obligation to provide evidence for this assumption. The same is true for assuming that god is real, but that the only thing that varies, or may be wrong, is the different concepts of god. That is a logical fallacy that takes place before the atheistic position. You guys are concluding that the premise (god) is true before having evidence for it. Then, in an almost arrogant way, you're claiming atheists have a negative position, or are commiting a logical fallacy, when nothing has been evidenced about your original premise. How does that make any sense?
But this isn't how the scientific methods works, is it? You don't design an experiment thinking, "I don't think this thing I'm (or you're) looking for actually exists." The only way to avoid confirmation bias is to keep an open mind -- that is, to be as agnostic as possible. But again - what experiment or method do you suggest for investigated concepts about god/s? If you can't provide one, as science has been able to, then maybe you should consider the claim made up until such time as a proper method of investigation can be given? It's very convinent to say that you believe in something that is unknowable, but I would be forced to ask you, then how do you know about it?
There are serious, well-qualified scientists out there doing research into the paranormal, and others who will admit to being interested in such subjects off the record but who fear damage to their reputations if they admit it publicly, and what they're up against is a cadre of vocal pseudoskeptics (many of whom are not even scientists) who continually insist that the reality of such phenomena is patently absurd. Can you reference ONE paranormal event that has ever been concluded to be the work of magic, ghosts, spirits, immaterial entities, god/s, etc.? Paranormal is just another word for "shit we haven't figured out to work naturally yet." It's actually pathetic to see shows on TV like "Ghost Hunters" or the like. People really have lost their minds these days. Hey, you know what was a great paranormal investigative show? Scooby Doo, remember? Even they knew ghosts didn't exist.
And to them it sounds like the most absurd notion; their educated doctors would laugh at you. But the kicker here is . . . you are right. Yes, but you could leave them tools and a method to investigate it on their own. I mean, how do you think we figured it out in the first place? - There was an actual working method to investigate it. What method do you suggest we use to investigate concepts of god/s? If you can, provide one please, I'm eager to get to work.
How are we to avoid situations like this ourselves, if we declare that the appropriate stance to take is "I won't believe it until you prove it to me?" Surely the truly skeptical position, the one more open to new facts, would be, "I can't be sure about that until you prove it to me"? You make a logical fallacy when you conclude the premise (god) is true without any evidence for it. The onus is on you to provide that evidence. That comes before my atheistic stance on your evidence-less premise. Your premise fails to be evidence, thus yours/RAZD's/any concept of god/s is irrelevant until you can show how the premise (god) is true. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
There are serious, well-qualified scientists out there doing research into the paranormal, and others who will admit to being interested in such subjects off the record but who fear damage to their reputations if they admit it publicly, and what they're up against is a cadre of vocal pseudoskeptics (many of whom are not even scientists) who continually insist that the reality of such phenomena is patently absurd. Can you provide names of these scientists? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: On the basis of the objective evidence alone is "probably human invention" atheism a justifiable rational conclusion? If not whay not. Be specific. No, for the reasons given in my recent post to RAZD here. I agree with him that the logical position is agnosticism and that if you decide to lean toward a negative or a positive, you should be able to provide evidence to justify your stance. The logical position is only "50-50 I just don't know agnosticism" if you deny the vast and overwhelming evidence that humans explain the unexplained with tales of the unexplainable. If you accept this blindingly obvious capacity for human invention then the reality of immaterial supernatural gods becomes so moot as to be irrelevant. I ask again - On the basis of the objective evidence alone is a degree of "probably human invention" atheism justified?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
On the basis of the objective evidence alone is a degree of "probably human invention" atheism the rational conclusion with regard to supernatural immaterial gods? Or not?
If not why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
CS writes: Then there's the point of it being the "entire" concept, which I find improbable because from the range from simple to complex subjective experiences that people have had in regards to religions, I doubt that they could all be imaginary. You seem to be citing the fact that people believe "something" as evidence upon which to believe in that "something". Surely this is circular.
If I was an atheist with a naturalistic approach, I see how these would be palatable explanations... but I'm not. Well as a scientist what warrants naturalistic explanations and what does not?
How about: No.
You seem to be citing the fact that people believe "something" as evidence upon which to believe in that "something". Surely this is circular. If belief is in itself objective evidence of that which is believed surely Santa Claus is one of the most objectively evidenced entities on the planet?
Sorry, that was a little snarky. I forgot we were friends now. I wanna get drunk with you does not mean I agree with you! In fact the reverse in every way is true (i.e. lets get beered up and then have a well meaning fight!)
For this thread, the atheists are suppost to be on the defense but it got turned around anyways. Do you honestly think people would not invent gods whether any supernatural immaterial gods exist or not? I think all of the objective evidence we have overwhelmingly suggets that we would. Feel free to disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Thanks Onifre,
According to the definition of Deism: That is one definition, however deism is not a defined sect. Seehttp://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html quote: There is no strict one-size-fits-all definition of deism as it is a personal philosophy\religion.
Now I can say with confidence that I am a #7. For the same reason that everyone has been saying: you are making that concept of god up. Excellent. Where's your evidence?
Can you demonstate how this concept is not made up? Can you show how you came to this conclusion observing the natural world? Perhaps at a later time, if the source above does not satisfy you, but it is off topic on this thread. The purpose of this thread is to focus on the negative hypothesis, and the need to provide evidence to supbstantiate a negative hypothesis. You have just claimed 100% sure-no-doubt-left that the concept of a "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" god is false. This means you have evidence that shows that this cannot be the case. Do you have absolute proof (a) that I made it up (which would include a complete lack of the concept posted in any other source ... ) or (b) that the concept itself is false (ie that a knowable god exists instead ... ) or (c) that there absolutely is no god of any kind anywhere anywhen. Evidence is needed when you make a claim. Have fun with that. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024