Scientific Knowledge

This is a bit off-topic for a thread strictly on Scientific "Knowledge". But we both know it is relevant in the wider context so I will diverge slightly. Picking one of the Lunar deities I linked to pretty much at random..... The Aztec Moon Goddess CoyolxauhquiHaving had men walk on the moon, having scientifically studied the moon's chemical composition are you really going to claim that our scientific knowledge fails to refute the idea that the moon is the disembodied head of the goddess Coyolxauhqui? Really....?

The symbols are irrelevant. 0+1=1 is a mathematical truth that we would expect any sufficiently advanced alien civilisation to know regardless of what symbols they use to express it.Likewise the relationship: Forget the symbols used. They are just conventions.

LOL. Come on Stragg ...that is a little different than: Are you sure you and bluegenes are on the same page? Ok, fine. Of course there are SN concepts which can and have been shown to be false. No problemo. Hmmmm, for me I accept that is true. This is where it gets murky for me. Im on my own island at times. Right between you and RAZD It's not about me tho, it's for the good of the God(s). And in that respect IMHO, RAZD has been very consistant whereas you say he's in-consistant.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Is it?Have you actually read what bluegenes has said? Do you know that any scientific theory pertaining to ALL of anything is necessarily inductive? Do you understand he role of inductive reasoning in science? Do you understand that ALL scientific theories are tentative? Are you making a distinction between supernatural beings and supernatural concepts? If so on what basis (can you give examples of each)?If you think bluegenes, me, Mod or anyone else on the "dark side" of the debate is making proclamations of certainty rather than expressing inductively derived tentative conclusions then you have utterly misunderstood the entire argument. Good. Are there ANY which have been shown to be real to the same extent? RAZD is disturbingly consistent in his absolute agnosticism to anything untestable. Did you actually read message Message 74 in this thread where I listed the vast array of things to which RAZ has proclaimed himself utterly unable to describe himself as even tentatively atheistic? 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?Where RAZ is inconsistent is in his denial of one conclusion in the face of another. For example he advocates that the scientific evidence favouring the Earth as billions of years old is indicative of "probable reality" whilst also asserting that any rejection of Last Thursdayism as improbable is pseudoskeptical because it hasn't been tested.How can the Earth be probably bilions of years old without being improbably a few days old? It is inconsistent nonsense and RAZ's position is riddled with such contradictions - Indeed one can be defined for any scientific conclusion that RAZ accepts as indicative of "probable reality".

Theories are based on our experiences of reality.
Bluegenes theory matches my experience of reality.
It it only RAZD (and yourself?) that thinks that humans are unable to create supernatural beings using their imagination. Luckily, Bluegenes theory is not arbitrary: it is based on reality.
Are you not aware of imagined supernatural beings?
Or are you aware of supernatural beings where human imagination is not the source? You must actually mean 'sufficiently convincing to xongsmith and RAZD', because even ToE does not have 'sufficiently convincing objective scientific evidence' for everyone.
Setting unobtainable standards seems a bit pointless. So, Lord Voldemort being fictional is hearsay? Even RAZD agrees that he is made up by human imagination. I wonder why you think different?
When people theorise about the age of the earth, they are not expected to test for unevidenced alternatives (e.g. Omphalism).
When people theorise about evolution, they are not expected to test for unevidenced alternatives (e.g. an intervening god).
Obviously, you wish to make an exception with Bluegenes theory. And now we are back to your "I don't care what you say - you haven't convinced me!"
It has been explained how the theory was formed.
We are not required to convince everyone that disagrees.I can find many, many people who are not convinced by the evidence for evolution.
That does not make it false.To summarise: most of your post is an Argument from Personal Incredulity: you aren't convinced by the theory.

Given that we are (once again) having to clarify the difference between tentative knowledge and absolute certainty I thought it would be worth posting Dawkins comments on his own scale: The 1 and 7 positions on the much cited Dawkins scale are reserved for things which can be axiomatically proved (e.g. mathematical truths) and expressions of faith based certainty such as those expressed by Chuck and other theists on this site. None of those here RAZ relentlessly accuses of pseudoskepticism hold such a position.

Hi, xongsmith. I've hesitated to engage this debate, since bluegenes and the Gang of Four, as you call them, have done so well.But what the hell. Every scientific investigation works with the implicit hypothesis that natural causes are both necessary and sufficient to explain observed phenomena.Since promoters of the supernatural hypothesis originally claimed that ALL phenomena are due to supernatural causes, every investigation that discovered necessary and sufficient natural causes has confounded the supernatural hypothesis--every investigation removed a brick from the supernatural edifice and added it to the inductive foundation of scientific naturalism.When a creationist dismisses the fossil record as evidence for the theory of evolution, we can and do cite specific findings. Similarly, supporters of bluegene's theory have cited specific findings that contradict the supernatural hypothesis' causal claims and confirm bluegene's theory.More important, though, since these findings are invariably dismissed, is a reference to the innumerable inductive findings in many fields that confirm the theory of evolution. In this context, we simply refer the creationist to the vast body of scientific knowledge. In effect, proponents of the theory of evolution and the proponents of bluegene's theory hand their critics an index to all of science. The notion that each datum must be recited in order to refute an unevidenced objection is absurd.So, as to the formulation of bluegene's theory: many thousands of times, if not millions of times, scientists' working hypotheses that we will find necessary and sufficient natural causes for each observed phenomena have been confirmed. Further, every supernatural hypothesis to the contrary, and every prediction made by the supernatural hypothesis, has been confounded. Bluegene's step from a large body of confirmed hypotheses to a strong theory is rigorously justified.If you want to see the mass of evidence that supports the formulation of bluegene's theory, I'll open the library door for you. As noted above, every scientific finding that supports the necessity and sufficiency of natural causation and confounds the supernatural hypothesis provides evidence for bluegene's theory. I believe he has referenced this evidence. Jeering at fragments of it while ignoring the totality of it will not invalidate the theory. Well, this is the last refuge, isn't it? The supernaturalist must abandon all claims to supernatural effects in the natural world and instead rely on the bare assertion that their woo-woo can be neither detected nor disproven.If you want a God-O-Meter, again, I refer you to the full repository of science. Every bit of instrumentation used to confirm the specifics of natural causation has also functioned as a God-O-Meter, and the needle has not moved.

Hello Straggler, I made no claims of knowledge whatsoever. When doing research science often attaches confidence values to the variables. It is of course a matter of how much confidence one places on the supposed knowledge eh? In other words I have more confidence your pen will drop at the speed of 9.8m/s square. But little confidence you have a soul. I do not KNOW you do not have a soul no more than I know your pen wont quantum tunnel though your desk. On the basis that historically the physical laws agree with that which has been observed. However the past may not actually exist. Time may be ever accumulating fractions of the now, and we only associate a past because temporally we make those assumptions. I am a creature that derives my existence from my sensory perception. If I exist in a universe that is manifested by a computer simulation then how is that different than my existence in this natural universe? If two things are identical in every aspect then there is no difference.

[qs=Numbers]You seem to be applying a meaning of the word "know" that entails certainty.Given that all science is tentative this would make the term "scientific knowledge" an oxymoron.When I say that I "know" my soon-to-be dropped-pen will fall in manner consistent with the objectively evidenced laws of physics I am not invoking certainty. I am invoking scientific "knowledge" which is implicitly and innately tentative to some degree.I don't really see that we are disagreeing on anything much but terminology here. You talk about confidence - But confidence of what? That our "knowledge" is an accurate reflection of reality?When in science we talk about having confidence in a theory what exactly do you think is being said?

This.

Good post.I have said something similar previously (so I am going to use a reply to your post to plug my own ) Message 436

That's only fair--reading your posts (and the rest of the Gang's ) on the subject crystallized my thoughts.

Hi xongsmith (brother X?) I am equally perplexed at this, but there is - even more to the point - the REST of what Truzzi said:Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesissaying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifacthe is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

​

Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[1]

---

So when I ask for the evidence and substantiation of the claim of having a theory and "plenty of evidence" to support it -- I am saying that the claim is NOT proven\demonstrated\supported sufficiently, and I am NOT saying that (or even addressing whether) it is false.We also see from Marcello Truzzi - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Truzzi was an investigator of various protosciences and pseudosciences and, as fellow CSICOP cofounder Paul Kurtz dubbed him, "the skeptic's skeptic." He is credited with originating the oft-used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

​

... Skeptic's Dictionary memorialized Truzzi thus: Truzzi considered most skeptics to be pseudoskeptics, a term he coined to describe those who assume an occult or paranormal claim is false without bothering to investigate it. ...

---

eg - the alternate hypothesis for the same "INADMISSABLE hearsay stories with their descent & modification & speciation" is just brushed away, the comments about possible alternative means for getting the concepts (religious experience, etc) are just brushed away, rather than examined.AND, to be clear, I do not need to provide substantiation for a claim that can be found copiously in literature, I just need to point out that it exists and that it has not been addressed in the development of the hypothesis ... and I have done that.It's really that simple, and has been that simple from the beginning: show me the objective evidence, show me how it is a theory based on objective evidence, and not just a conjectural hypothesis based on confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Show me that documented possible alternatives do not apply, rather than just assume it.That is how you do science rather than pseudoscience. If you can't do it then you do not have a scientific hypothesis.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : clrtyEdited by Zen Deist, : clrtyEdited by Admin, : Make author of quote more clear.

Hi Panda, Without any testing of any of the religious documents to see if they are due to an alternative source.Isn't that just ASSUMING that you "know with certainty" because you cherry pick your evidence according to confirmation bias? See Message 103 for my answer to this falsehood/misrepresentation/etcSo why did you clip the quote from the wiki article on Truzzi, while ignoring the actual quote that from Truzzi that actually applies, in favor of implying\saying something that does NOT apply?Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesissaying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifacthe is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

​

Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[1]

---

bluegenes has failed to substantiate that he has "plenty of" objective evidence or that he even has a (scientific) theory.We also see from Marcello Truzzi - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Truzzi was an investigator of various protosciences and pseudosciences and, as fellow CSICOP cofounder Paul Kurtz dubbed him, "the skeptic's skeptic." He is credited with originating the oft-used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

​

... Skeptic's Dictionary memorialized Truzzi thus: Truzzi considered most skeptics to be pseudoskeptics, a term he coined to describe those who assume an occult or paranormal claim is false without bothering to investigate it. ...

---

Again, I refer you to religious documents for possible sources of that information -- perhaps you really should look into it, rather than assume that you can claim to know all the possible sources?Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

Marcello Truzzi also writes Note that this criterion is met by the argument that thunder and lightning are caused naturally, rather than by Thor.Truzzi also concedes that plausibilty arguments may be adequate in some cases: And he has words for opponents of skepticism that have some relevance: In my view, defending a position by putting forward unfalsifiable and unevidenced ad hoc speculations as propositions to be taken seriously would fall into much the same category. Certainly it could be fairly described as "clinging to any slim loose end".Finally, Truzzi denies a need for absolute disproof: The latter sections of the Wikipedia entry, on Describing believers in pseudoscience and Criticizing scientific skepticism might also be profitably read by those interested in this debate.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.