|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Knowledge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
I think that is the corner he has now painted himself into. I don't think he would. This is someone who won't denounce the magically undetectable Easter Bunny as something which is almost certainly a human fiction.But if Bluegenes initial claim had been about ghosts - then RAZD et al would have agreed or been silent on the issue. Straggler writes:
But I think he does have a consistent position: he will say anything to maintain his belief in a deity. But until he comes back with a consistent position who knows.......?*shrug* Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Panda writes: *shrug* A very sensible approach. But not one I have ever been particularly good at following. Onwards and upwards.............
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Hi - I'm making this a general reply because it does not directly reply to any message so far. A long time ago, at the end of April, 1965 and continuing on through early May, a young musician (just shy of his 24th birthday) made a tour of England. This was filmed as documentary by D.A. Pennebaker. Let me jump to the bottom of page 125 in my very old worn-out copy and transcribe here a segment of his interview with a TIME magazine reporter:
========================================... DYLAN: I know more about what you do and you don't even have to ask me how or why or anything, just by looking, you know, than you'll ever know about me, ever. I mean, I could tell you, I could tell you I'm not a folk singer and explain to you why, but you wouldn't understand. All you could do, you could nod your head, you would nod your head. INTERVIEWER: You could be willing to try, and... DYLAN: No, I couldn't even be willing to try because, it is, you know, it would be, it's, you know, there're certain things which...every word, every word has its little letter and big letter. INTERVIEWER: Your friend had the right word - pigeonhole. NEUWIRTH: No, no, it's not important... DYLAN: No, no, it's not pigeonhole, it's not the word at all. You know, every word has its little letter and big letter, like the word "know". INTERVIEWER: Yeah. DYLAN: You know, the word know, "k-n-o-w". INTERVIEWER: Yeah. DYLAN: Okay, then you know the word Know, capital "K-n-o-w?" INTERVIEWER: Yeah. DYLAN: Like, each of us really "Knows" nothing. INTERVIEWER: Yeah. DYLAN: Right? But we all think we "know" things. INTERVIEWER: Right. DYLAN: And, we really Know nothing. ... ======================================= Just thought that was apropos. Maybe we, here, could say that science is in the business of "knowing" things, but not to go so as far as "Knowing" things. Using Dylan's capital letter system may facilitate the language of understanding. What was interesting was that every time Dylan wanted to say the capitalized version, he made these quote marks in the air. This was 1965. In 2011 making quote marks in the air is now so old it is considered to be in poor taste!- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do we scientifically "know" the age of the Earth?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Straggler asks:
Do we scientifically "know" the age of the Earth? Yes, we "know" this pretty well. Have you forgotten the extensive details posted by RAZD on this? ;-)- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Panda,
I'd like to clear up an issue or two here.
Straggler writes: Whatever Straggles writes about my position, you can be sure that it is his interpretation of his impression based on his biases, and not my position. He has some kind of stick up his posterior projection about what I believe and my approach to reality, and no amount of discourse has been able to convince him that almost all of his imagined problems are of his own making. He INVENTS positions for me. Most of the time it is amusing to watch him stomp around the forum like some kind of comic avenger.
But I think he does have a consistent position: he will say anything to maintain his belief in a deity. No. I will not argue that my personal opinions and beliefs are anything but my personal opinions and beliefs and it is irrelevant to me whether you or anyone think it is valid or justified or not. I care more about ant frass in Antarctica than I do about anyone's opinion of my opinions and beliefs. In addition, being open minded, my opinions and beliefs are subject to change. What I WILL argue for is the logic of the agnostic position, that without sufficient evidence pro or con, that there is no compelling reason to be other than agnostic -- or an open minded skeptic (a more descriptive term imho).
Both Case (A) and Case (C) are logical positions, based on evaluation of the available evidence. Case (B) is taking a "best guess" under duress of survival etc, while Case (D) is assuming that your opinion is valid. Personally I feel that it is important to keep an open mind, and not make arbitrary decisions based more on opinion than evidence. Frankly I am rather amused by the way some people feel they must rush to reach decisions when there is no compelling reason to do so, and insufficient empirical objective evidence to use as a basis for a rational choice. But I also feel that it is important to be skeptical of claims that are not sufficiently supported by objective empirical evidence. I doubt you, or anyone rational, would disagree with that. This skepticism works both ways, however: when there is a lack of supporting evidence and a lack of contrary evidence, I feel it is necessary to be skeptical of both ends of the issue (and leading back to agnostic). It is important to be skeptical of your opinions and beliefs as much as it is important to be skeptical of the opinions and beliefs of others. When we look into concepts like the Easter Bunny, we can see that both the bunny and eggs were symbols of fertility used by the Norse Goddess Eoster -- I told Straggles that he could look up the information, but it seems to me that he would rather make pompous asinine statements about me than actually do some work in this regard. In any event there is no evidence I am aware of that the modern folklore concept is anything more than a conflation of several things that were not in the original religious beliefs. Thus I am skeptical, but open to further evidence showing otherwise. Switching...
quote: No "easter bunny" there. The dyed eggs and the baby rabbits are in the same basket, and are symbols of fertility. Amusingly, I have been aware of this for over a decade. What I told Straggles is that we can each make up our own minds based on the evidence that is available. This was just after I had done a run-down on Santa Clause, showing where the original St Nick came from and where, when and by whom, several aspects of modern folklore were added. I told Straggles that he could apply similar research to the Easter Bunny, and noted that he could form his opinion and I could form mine from the evidence. It seems he would rather decide based on his opinions and beliefs.
Message 44: RAZD says: "we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."" Chuck cheers. I say:"We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have predict that the pen will fall downwards." RAZD cheers. I say:"We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings." Chuck jeers. RAZD acknowledges the reply. Curiously, what you fail to see here, is that there is a vast difference in the quantity and quality of evidence, test methods and information between {the age of the earth and gravity} and {the supernatural beings}. There is no evidence I am aware of that shows that a single supernatural being found in a religious text has been demonstrated to be the product of human imagination. There is no test that I am aware of that can distinguish an actual experience of supernatural presence and an experience that is imaginary, except by assuming that it is one or the other. We see Chuck77 assume it is one, and PaulK assume it is the other. Curiously, the continued LACK of evidence, and the continued LACK of a valid test method, leaves us only with information, mostly anecdotal, and subjective interpretation of it. This leaves me with very little confidence that it is anything other than wishful thinking and confirmation bias. The age of the earth has been confirmed by so many different means, from astronomy to physics to geology to the simple counting of layers, and the vast consilience between the different methodologies, from evidence as small as a Uranium Halo to something as large as the solar system. One can still be skeptical of the actual age and each of the different methodologies, but to be skeptical of the entire mass of information, data, test validations etc etc etc, one is essentially forced to consider that the only alternative is for the evidence to be false, intricately contrived, rather than representative of reality. Of course, the root problem here, is that this is assumed not to be the case, that science makes this assumption and then proceeds from there. This is the root cause of the necessary tentativity of science. You can't Know. Likewise the issue of gravity. There exists reams of evidence and data from testing and further testing and refinements of testing, each time getting closer and closer each time in the approximation of reality that science is. One can still be skeptical of the latest results for gravity and each of the different methodologies,but to be skeptical of the entire mass of information, data, test validations etc etc etc, one is essentially forced to consider that the only alternative is for the evidence to be false, intricately contrived, rather than representative of reality. Of course, the root problem here, is that this is assumed not to be the case, that science makes this assumption and then proceeds from there. This is the root cause of the necessary tentativity of science. You can't Know. The hypothetical conjecture that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination does not have any confirming evidence, nor does it have a test methodology -- both bluegenes and the Peanut Gallery have failed to provide any, which is remarkable for something claimed to be scientifically investigated and supported by "plenty of evidence" - - - unless what you are dealing with is pseudoscience, confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Rather obviously, imho, if you think that it is evidenced as well as the age of the earth or as well as gravity, you are mistaken. They are not comparable concepts.
But I think he does have a consistent position: ... that pseudoscience, false (pseudo) skepticism, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, idee fixe and wishful thinking are not science? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : replaced stilted nonsense subtitleby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Rather than relentlessly complaining about being misunderstood and misrepresented why don't you actually take the opportunity to explicitly clarify your position by answering some questions regarding a specific example? Why don't you take this opportunity to explain exactly how an "open minded skeptic" approaches the question of how old the Earth actually is?
More generally I am giving you the opportunity to clarify how it is that we can make evidence based conclusions regarding physical reality in the face of unevidenced but unfalsifiable/untestable alternatives. I am asking questions so that you can clarify your position. With that aim in mind here are the questions again:
There are no trick questions here. Just answer the above genuinely and the validity of your position should become clear to all.
RAZD writes: Indeed, we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old. That the scientific evidence leads to the scientifically evidenced conclusion is tautologically true. But what, if anything, does this evidence tell us about the actual age of the Earth? What conclusion regarding physical reality can we draw from the evidence you speak of? Can we dismiss evidentially baseless but untested things like omphalism or must we be entirely agnostic about the age of the Earth because we are unable to test such propositions?
RAZD on supernatural beings/concepts writes: Rather obviously, imho, if you think that it is evidenced as well as the age of the earth or as well as gravity, you are mistaken. They are not comparable concepts. The human ability and proclivity to invent such things is objectively evidenced beyond all doubt. Furthermore science provides us with an objectively evidenced evolutionary explanation for why humans are so predisposed to inventing such concepts. I suggest you read bluegenes posts regarding mutually exclusive creation myths and Mod's posts regarding hyperactive agency detection and suchlike again. Then, when you are tempted to start talking about the "Hindu Hypothesis", I suggest that you ask yourself these questions:
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Do we scientifically "know" the age of the Earth? X writes: Yes, we "know" this pretty well. Have you forgotten the extensive details posted by RAZD on this? Excellent. Just to be absolutely clear could you tell us what the scientifically known age of the Earth is? Just to make sure that we are all on the same page here. When coming to this scientific conclusion regarding the age of the Earth how do you think scientists treated evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable propositions such as Last Thursdayism? More generally - How does science deal with evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable alternatives to objectively evidenced conclusions? Do such propositions weaken scientific explanations and conclusions at all?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
RAZD writes: Then discuss my comments then.
Whatever Straggles writes... RAZD writes:
Read what I said. Panda writes: No. I will not argue that my personal opinions and beliefs are anything but my personal opinions and beliefs and it is irrelevant to me whether you or anyone think it is valid or justified or not. I care more about ant frass in Antarctica than I do about anyone's opinion of my opinions and beliefs. In addition, being open minded, my opinions and beliefs are subject to change. he will say anything to maintain his belief in a deity.I am not saying that you are arguing that your personal opinions are 'facts'. I am also not saying that other people's opinions matter to you. What I am saying that you will say anything to maintain your belief in a deity.IMHO you will say anything (or sometimes refuse to say something) to avoid spelling out how irrational a belief in an un-evidenced deity is. This is not because you don't want others to see you being illogical: it is because you don't want to admit it to yourself. RAZD writes:
Which is where you equivocate between knowing and 'knowing'. What I WILL argue for is the logic of the agnostic position, that without sufficient evidence pro or con, that there is no compelling reason to be other than agnostic -- or an open minded skeptic (a more descriptive term imho).You repeatedly bounce between "We don't know anything in science" and "We don't know if a deity exists". They are not the same thing. I think that the first ever claim that any deity could exist should have been met with the reply: "You have just imagined a new thing. Isn't the human mind a wonderful thing. I think you have just invented 'fantasy fiction'".
RAZD writes:
That looks like a strawman to me. Panda writes:
Curiously, what you fail to see here, is that there is a vast difference in the quantity and quality of evidence, test methods and information between {the age of the earth and gravity} and {the supernatural beings}. We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. I am not arguing that there is the same amount of evidence for both {the age of the earth and gravity} and {the supernatural beings}.I am arguing that we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. . I see little reason to continue fighting your cognitive dissonance. You believe in something for which there is no evidence.This has forced you into the position of claiming that you are agnostic about the easter bunny. Nuff said. Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Straggles asks:
Excellent. Just to be absolutely clear could you tell us what the scientifically known age of the Earth is? Just to make sure that we are all on the same page here. I thought I saw the figure of 4.54 billion years posted somewhere around here, with a +/- of 10%. Forget where, so no link to it. Shouldn't be a big deal to find. This is consistent with what I have seen elsewhere.
When coming to this scientific conclusion regarding the age of the Earth how do you think scientists treated evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable propositions such as Last Thursdayism? Many of them probably laughed and chose to ignore all that. Some may have realized that it wouldn't make any difference in their work even it was real, because, by definition, Last Thursdayism is always forced to make the universe look scientifically exactly as if Last Thursdayism wasn't there at all in the first place.
More generally - How does science deal with evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable alternatives to objectively evidenced conclusions? Do such propositions weaken scientific explanations and conclusions at all? I think they do a pretty good job of ignoring them. Weaken? I would think that the quite low noise level of error bars and real discrepancies in the actual evidence at hand that weakens the scientific explanations and conclusions - that this level is still so much more than your such propositions would weaken them, so much more so that these alternatives haven't yet been measurably detected and confirmed down in the much louder noise of the real objective evidence. However I would nevertheless hold out that they may not be down at a completely Zero level (to reference your "at all" modifier)....- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Hi Panda...
You say
I am arguing that we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. Just for a point of clarity (to make sure we're all on the same page, so to speak) - can you repeat for me (and the others) just what these test methods are here? Are these the brain scans? The psychological research? What do we currently have? Is it enough to proceed? Thanks in advance....- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It seems we are essentially in agreement. Except I would add that your description of how science/scientists treat "Last Thursdayist" type notions is entirely compatible with the de-facto atheist position that RAZ relentlessly insists is pseudoskeptical. So now let me put forward for your consideration a second proposition. A proposition where the consequences of the proposition being true cannot be so easily ignored.
How do scientists (and engineers) treat the proposition that all of our scientific knowledge and predictions are the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created 1 second ago and that the universe actually operates with subtly different physical laws to the ones we think we scientifically know? For example: I am holding a pen above my desk. I am going to let go of it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The tests undertaken involve the investigation of every phenomenon for which a supernatural explanation was posited by humanity and found to be false. Furthermore scientific evidence and investigation in the following areas as summarised by Mod previously. In Message 1292 Mod writes:
Mod writes:
The proclivity for humans to embellish, confabulate, imagine, speculate. The proclivity for confirmation bias in superstitious behaviour and beliefs. The hyper active agency detection of human minds, the need for 'false positives' in survival. The tendency to pay more mental attention to entities that are minimally counter-intuitive. The sheer number of conceptions of supernatural beings which have been shown false by science. The fact that no evidence supporting the existence of any supernatural entity has been forthcoming in an age where we figured out time dilation and quantum physics. The very existence of 'wishful thinking' that you point out and the very 'wishful' nature of many supernatural concepts. The hierarchical mind set of primates. Our strong desire for narrative, even or especially ones that circumvent our common notions in interesting ways. The connection between epilepsy and religious ideas, the common content of delusions and so on and so forth. There are plenty of psychological effects that we know of that could explain how humans can inadvertently create and believe in the existence of unseen beings.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
I refer you to Straggler's post referring you to Mod's post - as usual, I am envious of Mod's clarity of prose. Just for a point of clarity (to make sure we're all on the same page, so to speak) - can you repeat for me (and the others) just what these test methods are here? Are these the brain scans? The psychological research? What do we currently have? Mod's post was a reply to the exact same question (but posted by RADZ - not you).Unfortunately, RAZD simply acknowledged the reply rather than address it. Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda, thanks,
Then discuss my comments then. Then discuss my comments and my positions directly from my posts, rather than assuming that someone else is properly representing them.
Which is where you equivocate between knowing and 'knowing'. Ah, so taking an agnostic approach is equivocating? Taking an open-minded but skeptical approach is equivocating? If you feel you must make that conclusion, that's your choice.
You repeatedly bounce between "We don't know anything in science" Can you quote me saying that, or did you get it from someone else? If you can't quote me, then I suggest you apologize. Please don't start misrepresenting me too, or start putting false statements in my mouth. We've been over what we 'know' and what we don't 'know' already, and you have even quoted me, cheered, and copied me on that issue.
I am arguing that we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. What I see there is a lot of subjective assumptions, not science. What is the evidence, what is the test methodology? How would they produce a positive result for a supernatural presence?
... only known source of supernatural beings. What about religious documents -- aren't they a source of knowledge about supernatural beings? Seems to me there are a lot of them. Or do you mean "only source known to science" - as bluegenes has been forced to equivocated to, because of his failure to deal with the religious literature -- because such other potential sources have just not been tested? Isn't it rather unscientific to just ignore vast potential resources that may already include falsification of the hypothesis? Or is it just assumed to be imagination?
This has forced you into the position of claiming that you are agnostic about the easter bunny. Amusingly, you must not have read my post (either the latest nor the first on this amusing issue), but taken Straggler's misinformation instead. If you want to discuss my position then ask me -- and please delete all information you have absorbed from the constant misinformation campaign (whether Straggler's or others, whether it is unwittingly done, because of failure to understand, or not is immaterial to the issue that it is more often false than correct).
I see little reason to continue fighting your cognitive dissonance. Curiously, the cognitive dissonance I see is between claiming to have "plenty of evidence" and not being able to show a single piece of evidence that shows that a single supernatural being is a product of human imagination. All you have is subjective inference based on personal beliefs and biases, as far as I can see -- can you provide something else? Thousands of posts and not one identified supernatural being shown to be fiction by testing and documentation of results. Is it cognitive dissonance on my part to point out this rather blatant failure? As an open-minded skeptic I point out that the case for {supernatural presence} has not been sufficiently established by the available evidence, AND that the case for {all supernatural presence being the product of human imagination} has not been sufficiently established by the available evidence, including all evidence (subjective or objective) in both categories. 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