Scientific Knowledge

No. But there are an absolute plethora of human claims of the supernatural that have been investigated. Here is but a tiny selection of humans claims of supernatural causes which science has refuted to all practical intents and purposes. Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods etc. etc. etc. I didn't say it could.But I would say that the various unknowable notions of god are as baseless and unfalsifiable as the various notions of omphalism are. Hence they get dismissed by science in exactly the same manner.

It is a waste of time exactly because we both "know" that there is no basis for this proposition and that it can therefore be confidently discarded as "very improbable" in exactly the same way that science treats all such evidentially baseless notions. But consider RAZ's response to the same question: How can the scientifically evidenced conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old be indicative of "probable reality" (to use RAZ's own words as applied to highly evidenced scientific conclusions) without rejecting the notion that the universe was created 1 second ago as "improbable"?And yet anything more than an opinion is, according to RAZ's self defined brand of "open minded skepticism" - pseudoskeptical.It seems that the RAZDian "open minded skeptic" approach and the scientific approach are not compatible. Which just might be why RAZ faces so much opposition from so many of the science savvy members here at EvC (and possibly why he gets so much support from the scientifically illiterate - hello Chuck)

Do you remember the stuff about inductive reasoning?
No-one can test 'all' of anything.
Instead, you test a bunch of things and base future predictions on those results."It is very improbable that the pen will do anything but act in accordance with the objectively evidenced laws of physics."
This does not mean that all pens have been dropped.Supernatural explanations have been investigated and they were found to be wrong.
Do you know of an investigation which found that the supernatural explanation was correct? Argument from incredulity? How old is the age of the earth...exactly? But the experts think they are fine and they are evidence.Most of your post seems to be an argument that you think that ToE is better supported than Bluegene's theory.
And I would agree with you.
ToE is one of the most evidenced theories.But that does not mean Bluegene's theory is weak or unevidenced.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi Straggles That is what was on the scale when I accessed it - I did not change it. It appears that the one from the Dawkins site (when I accessed it via google cache) differs from the one in wiki. I don't know why it is different, but I would not be surprised to see different versions in print either. I'm happy to go with probability if that makes it easier for you. Yet he doesn't say certainty, so I also ask you, in return, if 100% probability (assuming, as it must in making any pretense of calculation, that the world was not created fully formed 1 second ago with subtly different physical laws that would change the probabilities) is as necessarily tentative as you want to make "know" or is it always 100% certain? And yet Jung did not say 100% certainty, he just said "I know" -- the issue here is whether that "I know" means inherently 100% certainty or your watered down version -- here you are assuming that it meant 100% certainty -- at least it looks like that to me.Nor did Dawkins say "100% Jungian certainty" he said "with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' " -- it appears you are changing the words again, words that are close but not quite the same:Conviction Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

conviction - n
1. the state or appearance of being convinced
2. a fixed or firmly held belief, opinion, etc

---

Certainty Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

certainty - n
1. the condition of being certain
2. something established as certain or inevitable
3. for a certainty without doubt

---

I can be convinced but not 100% certain.Did Dawkins imply that Jung's "know" meant 100% probability? -- it looks like that to me, but then I also have to ask, again, how certain that 100% probability is, (assuming, as it must in making any pretense of calculation, that the world was not created fully formed 1 second ago with subtly different physical laws that would change the probabilities) -- particularly if you are going to replace one word with the other. Just 6.999999999Rs/7 (=99.99999999% without the "Rs" repeats, ≡100% with the repeats) certainty. Certainly if we use the two decimals given on the scale as the required significant figures accuracy, and round your position to those two decimals it comes out =7.0, yes? Or are you recanting?But the real issue, the real question, is why you need 100% certainty here, and not elsewhere: aren't you equivocating between different definitions of "know"? The question is why you DON'T need 100% certainty here, and not then say "'I know there is no God" as well -- aren't you equivocating between definitions of "know"?So why don't you use "know" in both cases to mean the same thing?If you are going to have two meanings for a word and switch between them at your convenience and without clarification of which you mean at any given time, then you are equivocating, pure and simple.If I am going to accept your definition, I need to know () when to use know_(100%) and when to use know_{(99.99999999%)} (or even know_(51%). Can you know_(49%)?). Where are the break-offs, what are the rules of usage?Enjoy.

Just to clarify to the lurkers: the 'watered-down' version that RAZD is crediting to Straggler is actually the same watered-down version used by scientists.
Obviously, RAZD doesn't want to openly criticise all of science due to the ridicule it would engender.
Instead he tries to make it look like Straggler is the only person that says 'Know' and tacitly acknowledges the tentativity of scientific statements - which is obviously not true.Curiously, RAZD then criticises Straggler for expressing this long established tentativity.Straggler: I know that Lord Voldemort doesn't exist.
RAZD: But do you actually 'Know'?
Straggler: I am 99.9% certain.
RAZD: How did you calculate that?
Straggler: It is a figure of speech. There is evidence to show he was created by human imagination. There is no evidence that he is real.
RAZD: Then you don't actually 'Know'. You should be agnostic.

So rather than confront the inconsistencies in your own position you want to play a game of semantic pedanticism? OK. I’ll play along. But in order to avoid the hostilities that usually ensue between us I would like to attempt a slightly novel approach. I would like to first try and establish a baseline of agreement. Once this baseline of agreement has been established we can find out where exactly it is that our positions diverge. With this more constructive approach in mind consider the following:Bearing in mind that ALL scientific knowledge is tentative to some degree can we legitimately use the term know to describe the following —

• We know that 0+1=1
• We know that the Earth is billions of years old rather than just a few days, weeks or years old.
• We know that the motion of a soon-to-be-dropped-pen will be consistent with the objectively evidenced laws of physics (gravity, aerodynamics etc.)
• We know that all filament bulbs produce light and heat as a result of electrical resistance.
• We know that any concept for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence of any kind whatsoever is derived from the internal workings of a creative mind.

My answer to each of the above is — Yes — We can know each of the above to at least a degree of certainty that is consistent with necessary scientific tentativity. Having said that it needs to be added that the first one (0+1=1) doesn’t require the same sort of scientific tentativity because it is a mathematical axiomatic deduction that can actually be proved.Do you agree with me so far? If not where exactly does the disagreement between us lie?Edited by Straggler, : Change age of Earth question to reflect recent omphalisms so far discussed.Edited by Straggler, : Add filament bulb example to ensure obviously inductive example.

Hi Panda,Having trouble finding actual quotes instead of making them up? Because it is a fantasy fiction novel with an author, a book classification as fantasy, and massive acknowledgment that it is fiction, so the evidence certainly shows it is fictional.Please try a real position not a fake one. Then why not apply that to "I know gods don't exist"?I'm just trying to understand one "know" from the other.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

What, aside from human belief that one is true and the other is not, distinguishes the supernatural concepts contained in religious documents from the supernatural concepts contained in fictional novels?Do you think human belief is itself a form of evidence?

So: we agree that Lord Voldemort is a supernatural being created by human imagination.
Good.
Shall we look at another?{abe}
Sorry - I just noticed... Lord Voldemort is not a fantasy fiction novel.
He is mentioned in a fantasy fiction novel.
Are you claiming that being mentioned in a fantasy fiction novel proves he is not real?
Are you claiming that "massive acknowledgement" proves he is not real?I agree that he is created by human imagination, but your stated justification is greatly flawed. We do.
It is position 6:

quote:

---

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.'

---

Described in normal parlance as "I know gods don't exist" - but when asked to be more precise: it is expanded to something more like the quoted statement above.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

There are some points I could make regarding fictional entities, but they seem off-topic in this thread. So, to keep with the topic...Scientific laws are derived by induction - the weight of repeated observation. Now it must be said that a properly conducted inductive test is both rigorous and a rational basis for belief. But it is not a logically valid argument. It does not prove that the law will hold for anything that has not been directly examined, that the law held prior to any observations nor that the law will continue to hold.It would be easy to invent hypotheses where the law might not apply in certain other places or times. For instance, that the apparent law only holds in the presence of otherwise undetectable entities that just happen to be present at all the relevant observations. Or that there is a God who happens to change the laws of physics every so often. Science pays no heed to such hypotheses because they are unevidenced, unparsimonious and worthless.So, science uses logically invalid methods, and completely ignores unfalsifiable, unevidenced entities. Is a trust in science therefore a "logically-invalid" "pseudo-skeptical" position ?

In a strict deductive logical sense it probably is. But the fact that science leads to demonstrably accurate and reliable conclusions kinda confounds this accusation.Science isn't axiomatic. Everything in science is subject to comparison with reality. That is why we can consider it our most effective means of exploring reality. Because ultimately it is reality, not human belief, not wishful thinking, not personal bias, not even pure deductive logic, that is the arbiter of it's validity. Indeed. I would say that we scientifically "know" that ALL filament bulbs produce light and heat as a result of electrical resistance. But I haven't actually tested every single filament bulb to ensure that some are not being powered by ethereal salamanders.Is it pseudoskeptical to dismiss the evidentially baseless proposition that SOME filament bulbs are being powered by ethereal salamanders as uncertain but "very improbable" without checking every single filament bulb?I will leave that for the casual reader of this post to decide for themselves. But certainly if one takes the position that such rejection of any such unfalsifiable proposition as "very improbable" is pseudskeptical then science is necessarily and innately pseudoskeptical. Because the validity of science is entirely dependent on such conclusions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Panda writes: While this may have been a good line of attack, Zen Deist did not originally have to launch into counter claims at all! He was just criticizing the way this theory arrived. When a theory is proposed, the very 1st thing that must be shown is the theory, how it came to be. Theories have to be well-formed. They cannot be arbitrary wild claims or even mild claims. No. It is the BURDEN of the the person proposing the theory to provide good reason for it. If, after this first step has been reached - something that, seemingly, only the Gang of Four (bluegenes, Straggler, Modulous, Panda) have accepted blindly without the faintest breath of skepticism or agnosticism - if this step has been reached by a consensus of all stakeholders and there are subsequent troubles, then we can proceed along to your well-stated line of attack. If a challenger's 1st objection is in the formulation of the theory, then the BURDEN of "proof" is on the person proposing the theory. To make it clearer, strike the dubious word "proof" for "providing sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence".bluegenes has held up fairly well, but he has relied on the Gang of Four to do his homework & cheerleading quite a bit. Good for them - I would do no less. What he has not done is provided sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence for his theory. He has INADMISSABLE hearsay stories with their descent & modification & speciation. Meh. He has the relatively primitive tools of psychology, which basically detects that when brain patterns show the tendency to make things up, they will make things up. DUH. He has yet to describe the scientific equipment used to be able to detect a Supernatural Being OR by not detecting it, flick some kind of sensor off (or on, depending on the equipment's configuration) indicate that there was no Supernatural Being there.I am still completely dumbfounded that nearly everyone on bluegenes' side seems to think that those who disagree with him must provide their side of the evidence FIRST - when all that was happening here was the opening door troubles. I am even more astonished that anyone has concluded Zen Deist has made any theoretical assertions that bluegenes theory or claim is factually wrong! There seems to be a fundamental reading problem here. When has he ever once said in all the Great Debate & in all the Peanut Gallery that bluegenes theory was factually wrong? We should have wanted to see bluegenes walking into this arena with good objective scientific evidence & methodology & calibrated equipment supporting his theory. It's as if he is behaving like those stupid news shows that alert the viewers that *something innarestin' is next* through 12 commercial breaks and then when we get to it, it is nothing warranting the time we waited through all of those goddamn commercials to see. Okay - I admit it - I'm pissed off that you others on our bluegenes team cannot understand this. The person proposing the theory is the first person who has the onus of demonstrating how the theory came about. If anyone else challenges this - the challenger is not under the burden of providing providing sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence - the theory has to be defended with providing sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence by the proposer.Our team looks stupid when you ask challengers to be the FIRST to provide evidence. Talk about getting everyone else to do your homework for you!Come on now, get those magnetic rods able to do other things than pull up metallic things from the black oil pit in the bottom of the deep dark cave! We need better equipment - get it?

Straggler rounds up the Usual Suspects: LOL
okay - (putting on my best RAZD mask) - can you cite a link where science has objectively refuted Lunar Deities? *chuckle* nevermind......you cannot, but who's counting? Yes....I can see where you might come to that conclusion. Relatively. I would agree, but I haven't read the fine print yet.

Firstly what do you think that bluegenes theory is actually saying?1) I can prove that no supernatural entities exist.OR2) The positive evidence favouring human imagination as the only known source of supernatural concepts leads me to tentatively conclude that all such concepts are products of human imagination. It came to be as a result of the plethora of supernatural concepts which have been, and can be, shown to be false. The scientific equipment used to refute human claims of the supernatural is the exact same scientific equipment used to explore nature. For example the reason we know that Scarab the Egyptian godly dung beetle is not dragging the Sun across the sky each day, the reason we know that the Sun isn't Apollo's chariot, the reason we don't sacrifice people to the Aztec Sun god Tonatiuh etc. etc. is because we have scientifically studied the Sun and now know that these concepts (along with many many many many more such concepts) are not real entities.They are products of human imagination.

Straggler: Yes, we know that , but - we do not Know that.Symbolism used in formal systems can have different meanings. We might be looking at something like an autoparking algorithm....