Another Opportunity To Demonstrate Open Minded Skepticism In Action
You cannot keep claiming to be misunderstood and misrepresented whilst simultaneously turning down repeated opportunities to explicitly and definitively demonstrate the validity of your "open minded skeptic" approach through a specific example. Message 52 - "An Opportunity To Demonstrate Open Minded Skepticism In Action"
You have spent thousands of posts here at EvC adeptly presenting and advocating the scientific evidence upon which an old Earth is concluded. I consider it to be something of a specialist area of yours.
You have also spent thousands of posts insisting that an "open minded skeptic" approach demands that untestable propositions (e.g. that the universe was created omphamistically at some point in the relatively recent past) are unknowable and thus demand complete agnosticism with no valid conclusions, or statements of relative likelihood, being logically valid. You have repeatedly insisted that only subjective opinions can be formed.
What you have never done is reconcile these two things with regard to situations where there is both a highly evidenced scientific conclusion and a competing untestable but unevidenced proposition about which only opinions can be formed. Given that this situation exists for ALL scientific conclusions this would seem to be a rather glaring omission.
So why don't you clear it up for us?
RAZD writes:
If you want to discuss my position then ask me
I have asked you. Repeatedly. Message 52 - "An Opportunity To Demonstrate Open Minded Skepticism" In Action. Why not seize this opportunity to strut your stuff on two of your specialist subjects combined. The age of the Earth and the pseudoskepticism of de-facto atheism towards untestable propositions. If not for my benefit then all those lurkers out there.
The floor is yours.............
Do you agree that objectively evidenced conclusions are far more likely to be correct than evidentially baseless ones (no matter how untestable these evidentially baseless propositions may be)?
If the answer to 1) is effectively "No" why do you think we bother to base our conclusions on objective evidence at all? What is the point?
I would say that it is very probable that the Earth is billions of years old and correspondingly very improbable (i.e. de-facto atheist) that it was created omphamistically at some point in the relatively recent past. Does this make me a pseudoskeptic with regard to untestable omphalistic propositions?
What do you think the rational conclusion regarding the age of the Earth is?
How confident can we be that this rational conclusion is an accurate reflection of reality (i.e. the actual age of the Earth)?
Re: Certainty based on degree of evidence, testing and confirmation.
RAZD writes:
Then discuss my comments and my positions directly from my posts, rather than assuming that someone else is properly representing them.
We were discussing your posts - you just don't like what we were saying.
RAZD writes:
Ah, so taking an agnostic approach is equivocating? Taking an open-minded but skeptical approach is equivocating?
No - as I said - you are equivocating between knowing and 'knowing'.
RAZD writes:
Panda writes:
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?
Straggler: Do we need to test all evidentially baseless propositions before we claim knowledge RAZ? RAZD: Yes, because you don't know until you test it. Therefore, since science does not test for Omphalism: it cannot claim knowledge of the age of the earth. And since every scientific conclusion ignores evidentially baseless propositions: science knows nothing.
Straggler: Is it possible to have knowledge in the absence of certainty? RAZD: No, because to have knowledge (or to believe one has knowledge) one needs to be 100% certain. Therefore, since no claims in science are 100% certain: science knows nothing.
Mod: If you want knowledge to be about 100% certainty you have to deal with the fact that this means we cannot have knowledge. RAZD: acknowledges Mod's reply.
RAZD writes:
What I see there is a lot of subjective assumptions, not science.
Amusingly, that means that that you think a claim that Lord Voldemort was created by human imagination is just a subjective assumption. Or you can read Message 1292:
Modulous writes:
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. The alternative explanation: That there are real supernatural beings that some humans have experienced, has no supporting evidence and in some flavours is as unfalsifiable as Russel's Teapot, the IPU, and carries exactly as much merit.
RAZD writes:
What about religious documents -- aren't they a source of knowledge about supernatural beings? Seems to me there are a lot of them.
That looks like yet another strawman to me.
I am not claiming that religious documents are not a source of knowledge about supernatural beings. I am claiming 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.
RAZD writes:
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?
If you think it is evidence then stop ignoring it. Falsify Bluegenes hypothesis.
To quote Marcello Truzzi:
quote:Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses" - theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong - without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.
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. If you know of a different source of supernatural beings, then show us. Until then, you have not met the burden of proof required for you to claim Bluegenes hypothesis is wrong - all you have is an unsubstantiated counter-claim.
Name a source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination. To quote jar: It really is that simple.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
Still one more seemingly endless thread wherein RAZD supports his brand of woo with any pedantry and obfuscation he can scrape up.
It is hard to see much hope for the human race when folks who are so rational in most areas compartmentalize their woo and, in defending it, suddenly lose all rationality.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Since RAZD is apparently unwilling to answer some simple questions about his own statement, I am going to point out the major problems with it.
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.
By certainty, RAZD means absolute 100% certainty, and this is not possible.
We cannot disprove solipsism with 100% certainty, so RAZD cannot even know that any other people exist. Even assuming that they do, we cannot know with certainty the state of their knowledge, so the "we" must be only "I".
We cannot know with 100% certainty that any written material - books, scientific papers etc - are accurate and reliable. RAZD therefore cannot rely on written material to convey the evidence or the outcome of tests. And while he might have made observations that tell him the Earth is very old, it is unlikely that he has made any himself that give an age of over 4 billion years.
Worse still, RAZD cannot rely on his memory with 100% certainty. If he is not looking at the evidence or the tests RIGHT NOW he cannot be 100% certain of what they show. Or can he ? If he is using any information not immediately apparent to him to reason to a conclusion - even so simple a conclusion as interpreting the test output - he cannot be certain of THAT information. This would seem an insuperable barrier to absolute certainty of any numerical age at all. There is no test that lets you directly read off an absolutely certain numerical age from the thing being tested.
100% certainty is a chimera, it cannot be reached in any study of the external world. We cannot even know with 100% certainty that there IS an external world. 100% certainty is for axiomatic systems and our present experiences (in that we can be 100% certain that we are having an experience - nothing more).
RAZD can say that "I am absolutely certain that, according to the best of my knowledge, the Earth is more than 4 billion years old." But he can't talk about "we" or tests" or "evidence" because he cannot be absolutely certain of any of them. "We", "tests", "evidence" belong to the external world, and he cannot be absolutely certain of any of it.
Hello again RAZ. I see that once again you have forsaken the opportunity to enlighten us all by demonstrating how the "open minded skeptic" deals with scientific conclusions in the face of evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable alternatives Message 61
Perhaps you are not seeing the problem? So let me put it to you in your own terms. The scientific conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old obviously meets the "high confidence in being true" criteria of your stated scale below.
RAZD writes:
Here is my scale again:
You will note that to meet this level, it needs to have validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence.
However the untestable proposition that the entire universe was created omphalistically in the recent past (e.g Last Thursday) is necessarily demanding of complete agnosticism by the terms of the scale below. No statement of unlikelihood is, by the terms of your own scale, logically valid.
RAZD writes:
Without sufficient supporting or contradicting evidence:
Absolute conviction - {X} is true - is a logically invalid position.
Strong conviction - {X} is more likely true than not true - is a logically invalid position.
Weak conviction - {X} may be true, opinion that it is true, but not sure - is a logically valid position.
Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other - is a logically valid position.
Weak skepticism - {X} may not be true, opinion that it is not true, but not sure - is a logically valid position.
Strong skepticism - {X} is more likely not true than true - is a logically invalid position.
Absolute skepticism - {X} is not true - is a - logically invalid position.
So you have one scale for objectively evidenced conclusions. And another for unfalsifiable propositions. But what about situations (i.e. every scientific conclusion one can name) where there is both a highly evidenced conclusion and an evidentially baseless but untested/unfalsifiable alternative?
Is it really logically consistent to claim that the Earth is billions of years old as a "high confidence" and indicative of "probable reality" whilst simultaneously declaring that any statement of the unlikelihood of Last Thursdayism is logically unjustified?
RAZD can say that "I am absolutely certain that, according to the best of my knowledge, the Earth is more than 4 billion years old." But he can't talk about "we" or tests" or "evidence" because he cannot be absolutely certain of any of them. "We", "tests", "evidence" belong to the external world, and he cannot be absolutely certain of any of it.
Absolutely!!
However what RAZ seems to be saying (in his rather ridiculously worded replies) is that the scientifically evidenced conclusion is logically (i.e. deductively) consistent with the scientific evidence.
This is of course pointlessly tautological.
What you say about any conclusion regarding anything external to oneself as being necessarily tentative is entirely true. RAZ is playing dickwad word games.
However what RAZ seems to be saying (in his rather ridiculously worded replies) is that the scientifically evidenced conclusion is logically (i.e. deductively) consistent with the scientific evidence.
This is of course pointlessly tautological.
If you define RAZD's position as this then, yes, this is tautological.
But I see RAZD as saying something different:
"The conclusion is logically (i.e. deductively) consistent with the scientific evidence."
Which is not tautological and is quite realistic.
The problem I see in RAZD is he does not apply this viewpoint consistently. And because he is not consistent in this, and trying to resolve the disconnect, he has talked himself into this inane "100% certainty" position.
Conflicting positions ... consistency on what we can "know"
Hi Straggles
Hello again RAZ. I see that once again you have forsaken the opportunity to enlighten us ...
No Straggles, what I have "forsaken" (and will continue to forsake) is the opportunity to waste a lot of time in another debate with you when you consistently (a) fail to understand my position/s, evidenced by your failure to paraphrase them without alteration of the meaning, and (b) you are never satisfied with an answer. When we finished with Santa Claus you moved on to the Easter Bunny ... a consistent pattern of badgering and stalking from thread to thread. To put it bluntly I don't find debate with you productive in any way.
For example, I have already answered the issue of omphalism, and other extenuations of the same basic concept. I do not need to keep repeating an answer once made, no matter what you think about the answer. I suggest you accept the answer as having been given, and suck it up that it doesn't match your various personal opinions, wants and desires. If you don't like it, then I suggest you study the ant frass production in antarctica, as that will likely be more productive.
... in the face of evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable alternatives ...
Curiously, it should already be massively obvious that we will never agree about the details, even where our opinions are similar, because your position is simply not my position. It seems you can't accept this fact: I suggest you learn to.
Now ...
... being open-minded, I AM prepared to accept your (et al) watered down usage of "know" to include a degree of tentativeness ...
Straggles writes:
Message 1: Now I would say that I know, even before doing it, that when I drop my pen it will drop as gravity predicts. Tentatively - If you insist on philosophical pendaticism. But I KNOW to all practical intents and purposes.
Why tentative? Well it is conceivably possible that there is some reason that my prediction could be entirely wrong. The universe could conceivably have been created fully formed 1 second ago with completely different physical laws (esp with regard to falling pens) than the ones I falsely remember. So even when I say that I KNOW this degree of tentativity is implicit.
... if you can explain to me why it does not apply here:
quote:1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
Most devout theists would be 2's with some (fundamentalists?) that can be classed as 1's.
I'd say I'm a 3 - "agnostic deist."
(Note that this was two years ago)
The 1.0 theist C.G. Jung says "I know" (that god exists).
The 7.0 atheist says "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."
Meanwhile, in the past you have claimed:
Straggles writes:
Logically speaking: God is knowable, Message 34: Anyone who claims to be at 1 or 7 has to be deluded because either position requires a certainty about the source of their absolute certanty that it is impossible to have.
The key difference is that those of faith are necessarily 1s whilst those that call themselves atheists would more likely describe themselves as 6.999999999Rs as they would generally accept that absolute certainty about anything requires the sort of faith that they oppose!!
(note this was 5 years ago)
Which seems to mirror my position on what "know" means: you seem to equate "know" with "absolute certainty" in that (your first ever) post.
Note that the quote from Jung does not refer to 100% certainty, it just says "I know"
The 7.0 atheist says "I know there is no God"
Straggles says "I know, even before doing it, that when I drop my pen it will drop as gravity predicts."
So why aren't you describing yourself as a 7.0 atheist, given your preferred watered down definition of "know"?
Can you enlighten us why 6.999999999Rs is not "know" as you want to use it?
(note to readers, the above was posted before Straggles was shown that
0.999999999Rs (meaning repeats infinitely) ≡ 1
Straggles writes:
The 0.99999~ = 1 ? thread, Message 58: I get all the arguments for 0.999R being entirely equalt to 1. But it still seems "wrong" that 0.999R is a whole number. Surely I am not alone in this intuitive feeling? Otherwise it wouldn't even be a topic worth highlighting.
Of course, this also means that 6.999R ≡ 7.0
Oh God. Please. Let's not go there. You know what I mean about the inherent impossibility of certainty in evidence based arguments just as well as I do.
So does "KNOW" mean high confidence with a dash of tentativeness ...
... or does "know" mean a level of certainty that cannot be logically attained in "evidence based arguments" (such as the age of the earth)?
Any use of the term "know" that entails absolute 100% certainty (i.e. the 1 and 7 positions on the Dawkins scale) is misplaced outside of axiomatic systems such as mathematics. Evidence based conclusions cannot achieve such degrees of certainty for all the reasons PaulK has pointed out to you in this thread and numerous others (including myself) have detailed previously. You will note that the de-facto atheist position on the Dawkins scale explicitly states "I cannot know for certain.......".
Dawkins scale writes:
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
RAZ writes:
Note that the quote from Jung does not refer to 100% certainty, it just says "I know"
Note that the position being referenced states "100 per cent probability". Which is by definition absolute certainty is it not? (Dawkins Scale - You have changed the word "probability" to "possibility" in your post - Why?).
Dawkins scale writes:
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
RAZ writes:
Straggles says "I know, even before doing it, that when I drop my pen it will drop as gravity predicts." So why aren't you describing yourself as a 7.0 atheist, given your preferred watered down definition of "know"?
Because I am not claiming 100% Jungian certainty.
I am not claiming that we can know with absolute 100% Jungian certainty that the world was not created omphalistically in the recent past. I am not claiming to know with 100% Jungian certainty that the world was created fully formed 1 second ago with subtly different physical laws (esp relating to falling pens) to the ones we falsely remember.
What I am saying is that we have enough evidence to scientifically "know" that the Earth is billions of years old in age. Because science is tentative the Earth is "very probably" rather than certainly billions of years old. Correspondingly it is "very improbable" that the Earth was omphalistically created in the relatively recent past.
What I am saying is that we have enough evidence to "know" that my soon-to-be-dropped pen will fall as per the laws of physics. It is "very improbable" that the pen will do anything but act in accordance with the objectively evidenced laws of physics. It is "very improbable" that the evidentially baseless notion of the 1 second universe is correct.
Now you have persistently and unequivocally asserted that any talk of improbability with regard to untested propositions is pseudoskeptical.
RAZD writes:
All you can make are pseudoskeptical pseudo-calculations of pseudo-probabilities. That is not scientific OR logical.
But you have never reconciled this with your own conflicting position on highly evidenced scientific conclusions as being indicative of "probable reality" (your words).
How can (for example) the scientifically evidenced conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old be indicative of "probable reality" without rejecting the notion that the universe was created omphamistically in the recent past as "improbable"?
I put it to you RAZ that the rejection of evidentially baseless propositions as "very improbable" is NOT pseudoskeptical in the way you have relentlessly asserted for the past few years with all your colourful charts and graphs.
I put it to you that the rejection of such notions as "very improbable" is the scientific approach.
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
Why do you have such a problem with RAZD being uncertain yet inclined to believe in God, when you are:
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
??? Why are you consistantly turning the tables on RAZD when he is being completley open and honest about his position as being uncertain and agnostic about the possibility of God and leaning towards His existance rather than non-existance but has no clue and you are basically arguing day after day that it's about as unlikey God exists as it is that the earth was created yesterday. VERY UNLIKLEY. Which is YOUR stance on God, if not more so.
It is you who is being radical. Not RAZD, he is atleast saying it's possible and simply leans towards it. As you who leans VERY heavy against. Yet you badger him, why?
Why are you the one who gets to gloat about how right your position is and not RAZD' position?
Maybe because he's a little outnumbered?
It is you who is heavy on the unreasonable side and not RAZD. You are arguing way more for the non existance of God than RAZD is arguing for the existance of God.
Yet, you continue to badger him as if he is the one being unreasonable.
Re: Certainty based on degree of evidence, testing and confirmation.
Straggler writes:
The tests undertaken involve the investigation of every phenomenon for which a supernatural explanation was posited by humanity and found to be false.
Can you clarify this? Do you really mean that EVERY posited supernatural phenomenon has been investigated? or that only those which have been investigated in these tests have all been found to be false? Assuming the latter, again, I am not extremely impressed. Assuming the former, I'd like to see evidence that every single one has been investigated now (which is why I think you meant the latter).
Straggler then cites Modulous' arguments from psychology.
I just don't feel it is all-encompassing enough to be convinced that it is enough to proceed as if bluegenes theory can be taken at the same level of confidence as the theory of evolution. Again - psychology is inexact - more so than botany, for example. Psychology still relies on a primitive measurement system in my opinion. Convince me otherwise, but the use is limited, like my fish net with a short handle that can only scoop up the dead fish at the top of the dynamited pond. Are all the fish dead? I have a definite Non-zero doubt here, enough for me to put the brakes on the subsequent Inductive Atheism step just yet. We need better evidence before it's safe to proceed, methinks. I would like to think it was safe, but I am cautious. I have no doubts, however, that this line of argument will produce a lot of belly-up fish, waiting for my short-handled net.
Re: Is the Scientific Aproach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
Straggler writes:
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.
Who cares about that? What I may think and what the scientific community might think could be very different from time to time. You asked me what I thought "they" would think - and I speculated what I thought "they" would think. Not what I think. I'm probably not all that different from them, but at a 5.7d level, not a 7 or 6+.
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.
This is an extension upon the Last Thursdayism and shrunk down enough so that you can let in the subtly different physical laws - a nice sort of wrinkle - but still, nonetheless, a waste of time in my mind to speculate on. Good luck with that. I might digger what you're on about at some later time, should it become an issue.
Do you really think any of this has anything to do with attacking RAZD’s personal beliefs?
Do you really not think it might have something to do with the particular brand of agnostic fundamentalism, a position which defines anyone who takes an atheistic stance to anything unfalsifiable as a pseudoskeptic , being preached by RAZ here on a debate board?
As long as RAZ is accusing those who choose to take a scientific approach to unfalsifiable notions such as omphalism of being pseudoskeptics — I will be delighted to point out the inconsistencies, contradictions and general flaws in his position.
Chuck writes:
It is you who is heavy on the unreasonable side and not RAZD.
Have you actually read RAZD’s position on the full gamut of unfalsifiable concepts? Have a read the thread Pseudoskepticism and logic? At the end of that thread RAZ gave the following response:
bluegenes writes:
If someone here on EvC tells you that they have special psychic powers, and that these powers have led them to know that there is an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom who will be there for a week and will try to kill you while you're asleep, would you move out of your bedroom for a week? You cannot know whether the proposition is true or not (you're agnostic on it if you admit this), but you'd probably treat it as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, and sleep in your room as normal.
RAZD writes:
Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in.
A selection of the scenarios and entities that were mentioned in that thread and which I would class myself as being a pseudoskeptical 6 on the scale above are:
Last Thursdayism. Immaterial toilet goblins, the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion, the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel, Vishnu, Allah, The Christian God, Mookoo, Wagwah, the incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum that holds the universe in place on the back of the immaterial green turtle as it wades through the invisible aether, The Easter Bunny, Catholic Scientist's concept of god, the tooth fairy, the garage dragon and other imaginable but irrefutable concepts that the human brain can conceive of.
Chuck writes:
It is you who is heavy on the unreasonable side and not RAZD.
I urge you to read that linked to thread. Is it really rational to be 5 on the scale you refer to with respect to Immaterial Toilet Goblins the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel, Last Thursdayism or the tooth fairy?
We cannot test for any of these. But I would suggest that we can still be pretty damn sure (albeit philosophically uncertain) of their non-existence. No?
Re: Certainty based on degree of evidence, testing and confirmation.
Hi RAZD,
Since you have responded to the 2 replies made by Straggler but ignored the one I made, I am left thinking that you accept most of the statements included in my post.
An example of what I think you have tacitly accepted:
Panda writes:
To quote Marcello Truzzi:
quote:Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses" - theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong - without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.
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. If you know of a different source of supernatural beings, then show us. Until then, you have not met the burden of proof required for you to claim Bluegenes hypothesis is wrong - all you have is an unsubstantiated counter-claim.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
