|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
The problem is that what RAZD is claiming is complete nonsense. Lets look at this quote:
RAZD writes: If there is no need to posit a deity, there is also no need to posit the actual absence of a deity, and a skeptic can just say there is no reason to form a decision at this time. Suppose you are packing for a trip, and your significant other asks you if you should pack a wrench. You are momentarily confused as there appears to be no reason to bring a wrench, as you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip. It seems completely unnecessary. The problem is that when you point out "I don't see any reason to bring that along," if the response is "But you have not given any reason not to bring it along,". In this example the reasons for not packing a wrench in your overnight bag may be slim, but the point is where you are starting from. Things don't have a 50/50 chance of being packed in your overnight bag until you consider them and weigh the pros and cons, the default position is not packing something unless you have a reason. That is the same mentality I am applying toward claims of reality: I don't believe something exists without a good reason. RAZD appears to be taking the position that, not knowing a particular pro or con for bringing the wrench, he should freeze in indecision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
Hi Rrhain,
quote: And yet something can be true or real but unprovable, which in your scenario above will be taken by everyone as being no different from imagination, hallucination, etc. To answer the question "Is there a god?" you seem to be saying, "People make stuff up, therefore I'm going to believe that God is made up until it's proved otherwise." But the converse of this can also logically apply: "People routinely don't make stuff up, therefore I'm going to accept that they are not making God up until it's proved otherwise." I don't see any reason why the former should be preferred over the later, apart from personal incredulity.
quote: Who says, apart from you? This goes against everything I've learned about science since elementary school. If you are invested in a certain outcome of an experiment, e.g. by believing that it will not produce a positive outcome, then you have confirmation bias. You seem to be confusing objectivity and neutrality with active doubt. This is just as counterproductive as conducting an experiment where you really, really hope you get a certain outcome. I'm sure this can be hard for some scientists to avoid when it's their life's work, but it's what they have to do in order to be open to results that might be surprising or disappointing but valid. Here is what one scientist says about skepticism in science:
Sourcequote: Whether you personally like what this scientist researches is immaterial. If you believe that the negative hypothesis should be the default position in science, then "this belief leads to dogmatism, and to the dismissal of ideas and evidence that do not fit in." In other words, it becomes acceptable to dismiss a new idea with nothing more than, "Everyone knows that's ridiculous," with no obligation to prove that this is actually the case. Do you think that's what science should be about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Only if we consider you utterly incompetent when compared to the rest of the human race. We have evidence that other people can hear and usually are accurate in what they hear, but you appear to be a liar whenever it benefits you. If we consider you wholly unreliable and dishonest, then it would be reasonable to ignore anything you claim no matter its possibility of being true. But we just don't know, do we? Shall we begin?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Suppose you are packing for a trip, and your significant other asks you if you should pack a wrench. My reply would be: "I don't know."
RAZD appears to be taking the position that, not knowing a particular pro or con for bringing the wrench, he should freeze in indecision. Right, you are in a position of not knowing until further evidence comes along.
You are momentarily confused as there appears to be no reason to bring a wrench, as you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip. It seems completely unnecessary. Okay, so there's our con evidence which changes our answer to: "No, significant other, we should not pack a wrench."
The problem is that when you point out "I don't see any reason to bring that along," if the response is "But you have not given any reason not to bring it along,". In this example the reasons for not packing a wrench in your overnight bag may be slim, but the point is where you are starting from. The reasons were: "you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip" and "It seems completely unnecessary".
Things don't have a 50/50 chance of being packed in your overnight bag until you consider them and weigh the pros and cons, the default position is not packing something unless you have a reason. I think the default position is not knowing if you're going to pack something until you decide if you need it or not.
That is the same mentality I am applying toward claims of reality: I don't believe something exists without a good reason.
Then you're a psuedoskeptic, as defined by the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
LindaLou writes:
I say it as well. "Invested" is not the same as holding to the null in the absence of evidence; your elementary education would have been better served differentiating such concepts.
Who says, apart from you? LindaLou writes:
No, it becomes acceptable to dismiss a new idea with nothing more than "You have no evidence to support that idea,". YES, that is what science should be about!
In other words, it becomes acceptable to dismiss a new idea with nothing more than, "Everyone knows that's ridiculous," with no obligation to prove that this is actually the case. Do you think that's what science should be about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
Only if we consider you utterly incompetent when compared to the rest of the human race. We have evidence that other people can hear and usually are accurate in what they hear, But we just don't know, do we? Oh okay. So if it was a voice and it said: "I am god and I exist". Now how competent would I be?
but you appear to be a liar whenever it benefits you. Oh, so you have evidence that I have, in fact, lied eh?
If we consider you wholly unreliable and dishonest, then it would be reasonable to ignore anything you claim no matter its possibility of being true. You've jumped to the conclusion that I'm unreliable and dishonest so you're unreasonably ignoring anything I claim.
Shall we begin? Huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
So tell me why "I don't see any reason to hold a theistic position without evidence," is any different.
The reasons were: "you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip" and "It seems completely unnecessary". Catholic Scientist writes:
Then you never leave the room, and the bag never gets packed.
I think the default position is not knowing if you're going to pack something until you decide if you need it or not. Catholic Scientist writes:
No, I am simply rejecting a hypothesis as a true skeptic would. You seem to be equating the null hypothesis with a claim, which is not the case.
Then you're a psuedoskeptic, as defined by the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
Hi Bluegenes,
I think I see what you're trying to say. So if I decided to pick one way that I believed the universe had come into existence, I would be excluding all other ways, which means that the probability of my choice would be infinitely small compared to the infinite number of other choices available. On the face of it, it sounds all mathematical and logical. But when we look at something specific like the origins of the universe, there aren't that many possible causes that I can conceive of. Either it happened by chance as part of the natural processes of reality, or it happened through the operation of some conscious power. We can choose to call that hypothetical conscious power "God", a kernel of which exists in all the different expressions of theism that humankind has believed in. By this logic, we get a 50/50 chance that there is a god that created the universe, and we don't have to worry about whether it is a literal Zeus or Vishnu or Allah. But I personally think that all these odds are heavily dependent anyway on how we form these little scenarios, and they don't mean much. If my daughter claimed that she'd seen fairies in our garden, I don't know how I'd make up odds for that. It's immaterial. I know that children are particularly imaginative and prone to making things up but I also know that I can't prove fairies don't exist. I'm agnostic on the matter and I don't think it's doing either me or my daughter any harm.
quote: This isn't really any different from saying, "I believe in the God of the Bible and I can prove why this God and no other Gods exist." No one can rationally do that. More evidence for the purely agnostic position to be the default one until more evidence comes to light.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then, if it came from the back yard we would reasonably check the back yard. When you suggest to check "heaven", you start to lose credibility.
Oh okay. So if it was a voice and it said: "I am god and I exist". Now how competent would I be? Catholic Scientist writes:
You are the person who concluded we couldn't know about the truth of an objective phenomenon you claim to have witnessed. I just provided a possible explanation for such a thing.
You've jumped to the conclusion that I'm unreliable and dishonest so you're unreasonably ignoring anything I claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined:
|
quote: Being invested in the outcome of an experiment is positive confirmation bias. Actively doubting the future results of an experiment or study is negative confirmation bias. There are some fields of research where negative experimenter bias can easily interfere with results. I'm finding it hard to believe that people are arguing with me here against neutrality/agnosticism as being the best state of mind for achieving accurate experimental results.
quote: Sure, but inherent in this are two possible attitudes:a) "I will believe this is incorrect/nonexistent until I see some evidence." b) "I will remain undecided until I see some evidence." Now before you or anyone else has more fun with making up silly situations, we're talking about instances where there is little or no evidence to go on. If a stranger walked up to me and claimed that they'd just seen a diplodocus walking through the park, I would not say "I will remain undecided until I see some evidence" because I know that: -- The fossil record shows that diplodocus went extinct millions of years ago (unless you credit something like the Loch Ness Monster), and people don't tend to see them walking through parks today;-- I don't know this person and they could be schizophrenic or on drugs; -- Someone could be trying to play a stupid joke. By my own terms I would have to leave room for a little doubt in case this person had had some kind of extraordinary vision, but the empirical evidence strongly suggests that's not the case. When we look at something like theism then there is much less evidence either way, which is why the agnostic position is IMO the rational one. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
So tell me why "I don't see any reason to hold a theistic position without evidence," is any different. The reasons were: "you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip" and "It seems completely unnecessary". Its not. And that fits within agnosticism. But this thread is about atheism that is, not simply withholding a theistic position but, holding the position that god does not exist. In other words, your saying that we don't need to bring a wrench, to which a proper reponse would be: "why not?"
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then you never leave the room, and the bag never gets packed. I think the default position is not knowing if you're going to pack something until you decide if you need it or not. Sure you would. You'd decide on what needs to be packed and what doesn't.
Catholic Scientist writes:
No, I am simply rejecting a hypothesis as a true skeptic would. Then you're a psuedoskeptic, as defined by the OP. Then by what evidence are you rejecting the hypothesis? A true skeptic doesn't reject it because of a lack of evidence, at that point they remain at the position of not knowing.
You seem to be equating the null hypothesis with a claim, which is not the case. A null hypothesis is for stats and it contrasts against another hypothesis. It doesn't fit within the scope of this thread, in which atheism is a claim that god does not exists and unless it is supported by evidence, then the person holding the claim is a psuedoskeptic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then, if it came from the back yard we would reasonably check the back yard. When you suggest to check "heaven", you start to lose credibility.
Oh okay. So if it was a voice and it said: "I am god and I exist".Now how competent would I be? I haven't suggested heaven....
Catholic Scientist writes:
You are the person who concluded we couldn't know about the truth of an objective phenomenon you claim to have witnessed. I just provided a possible explanation for such a thing. You've jumped to the conclusion that I'm unreliable and dishonest so you're unreasonably ignoring anything I claim. No, I was suggesting that you couldn't know it was an objective phenomenon or not and that concluding that I made it up because we don't know that it was objective is unreasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
LindaLou writes:
Doubt is part of being a skeptic, get used to it. Or, good luck being a skeptic without it... Actively doubting the future results of an experiment or study is negative confirmation bias. Doubt alone does not negatively affect the outcome of any experiment, and is indeed the reason why experimentation is done. We learn from experiments because we do not know what the outcome will be; therefore, we *doubt* the outcome.
LindaLou writes:
Attitude "a" still allows for evidence to be presented, and in this case it would be reasonable to go check the park for dinosaurs.
By my own terms I would have to leave room for a little doubt in case this person had had some kind of extraordinary vision,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3892 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Well, I think you're right, but your reasoning is slightly flawed.
It's the "teapot orbiting mars" conundrum - you could easily SAY that there is a teapot too small for the most powerful telescopes and equipment to detect orbiting mars, but you cannot prove it. You also cannot prove there isn't. In this case, the rational viewpoint would be to say that it doesn't exist, but you would still say yes, it is possible. Atheists give the chance of god (given his/her apparent lack of presence in the world) is as likely (or less) than the teapot - i.e. everything works so exceptionally well *without* god that the evidence (of no interference) is so great that the logical position is that there is no god. of course, even the hardest skeptic would say it's possible, but that's nonsensical to assume it's true just because it may be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
To which the response would be: "Because I don't see a reason to pack it, and my default position is to not pack things."
In other words, your saying that we don't need to bring a wrench, to which a proper reponse would be: "why not?" Catholic Scientist writes:
On what criteria would you base this decision? You cannot know if you will need the wrench, but you cannot be sure you will not. You simply don't have any reason that you should bring it. So what do you do, and why?
Sure you would. You'd decide on what needs to be packed and what doesn't. Catholic Scientist writes:
By the evidence that it lacks any evidence to support it. Note that I am not claiming it is incorrect, I am simply rejecting it until such time as it supports its claims.
Then by what evidence are you rejecting the hypothesis?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024