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.
Yes - that is me doing that. It is ALL INADMISSIBLE evidence because of it's known unreliability. I might get a good song out of these things, but we cannot "Know" and we cannot even "know" the source of these stories. We can only learn from them.
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.
Well, in my opinion, your "Houdini" Hypothesis does not hold any water. Comet Garrard has recently just passed by the little asterism colloquially known as the "The Coat Hanger", in Cygnus the Swan. No astronomer has ever put forth the notion that "The Coat Hanger" is anything more than a mere chance alignment of randomly located stars in that particular direction of view. It looks like a coat hanger, but it is not.
It looks like all the world's religions have something underneath that is common to them all, but I don't think so. I'd rather go here with Modulous' comments about human "proclivity", as magnetically roddish as they are...but anyway, it's still all addressing inadmissible evidence.
Note to others: if I "acknowledge" your posts it is either because (a) the answer has been provided previously, (b) it is provided on another post to someone else, so check them, or (c) it doesn't need\deserve a response (d) it is essentially a rhetorical or informational post, or (e) that I have other posts with what I consider higher priorities to address. If I "acknowledge" AND "cheer" then I agree with you.
So rather than confront the inconsistencies in your own position ...
The typical ad hominem opening gambit ... even on a purported peace offering post.
When I take the time to show that these "inconsistencies" are actually straw men arguments, you ignore it and later repeat your barrage of insinuations and disparaging comments.
And you wonder why I don't like to answer your posts.
So rather than confront the inconsistencies in your own position ...
Straw man, straw, straw man my old banjo . . . ♫ ♪
Tentativity
Science assumes that objective evidence represents reality, and thus it is within the blue area.
Everything outside the blue area is the reason that science must be tentative, no matter how strong the confidence we can have in a theory, because it is possible that objective evidence lies and does not represent reality.
All your little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities of evidence being false are ALL in the area outside the blue circle.
Once you or I and any scientist assumes that the evidence represents reality, we are in the same boat. We assume that the evidence does not lie.
Being tentative about any one (after one after one etc ad naseum) of thousands of such concepts, is conceptually no different than science being tentative about ALL of them.
When we come to the confidence we can have in this basic foundational assumption of science, it is the confidence that comes from the massive mountain ranges of tested data that all appear to work together to produce a cohesive, consilient and comprehensive picture\map\description that is massively cross-connected and interlocked.
If the evidence is a lie, then it is an extremely, extraordinarily, well constructed lie, but none the less ... this is always a possibility.
Do you agree? yes or no
Confidence
You've posted copies of my Table of Confidence in your attempts to show that my positions are not consistent. This is an updated version:
quote:
Note that this scale relies on the scientific method to reach levels III and IV, and both of those require objective empirical evidence. In addition, each level leads to the next higher level as more evidence and information becomes available and stricter standards of testing are applied (ie, are falsifiable).
Levels III and IV start with objective evidence of specific instances where the concept/s are known to be valid (positive test), where IV has been tested and validated. These compare with scientific hypothesis and scientific theory.
In this regard evidence for something needs to be objective empirical evidence that positively supports a scientific hypothesis, and evidence against a particular proposition would be evidence that invalidates it.
We can also add the table from the discussion with Percy (Message 110):
quote:To be specific, though, my argument is: where there is less evidence contradicting something being real, there is more possibility of it being real; where there is more evidence contradicting something being real, there is less possibility of it being real; where there is less confirming evidence of something being real there is less possibility of it being real; where there is more confirming evidence of something being real there is more possibility of it being real:
relative likelihood of being real
more evidence
less evidence
Confirming
more possibility
less possibility
Contradicting
less possibility
more possibility
And these can be combined:
when there is more confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there is even greater possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
when there is more contradicting evidence and less confirming evidence, there is even lesser possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
when there is less confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there are some conflicting possibilities (and some uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not), and
when there is more confirming evidence and more contracting evidence, there are more conflicting possibilities (and more uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not).
In fact they need to be combined to have a coherent picture of the relative likelihood of being real. Failure to consider contradictory evidence while focusing solely on confirmatory evidence means you can have a false\incomplete picture.
The scales of evidence from "more" to "less" can of course be extended, but the purpose is to show relative categories in four basic areas. We can have medium and high confidence in (1) and (2) and little confidence in (3) because there is insufficient evidence either way, and we can have very little confidence in (4) where massive conflict shows that there is likely a conceptual error in the hypothesis or the testing method.
We could inject 'more' and 'less' "subjective" evidence between extremes of 'more' and 'less' "objective" evidence, and you still end up with a relative picture of concepts.
All of these constructions are consistent with my posts, especially the ones presenting these constructions, and ones for the age of the earth (presenting evidence that shows that it is well over the maximum estimate of any YEC model concept), and the like . . .
Do you agree? yes or no
Belief
You have also posted copies of my Modified Dawkins scale. This is the updated version of that scale that is generalized:
Without sufficient supporting or contradicting evidence:
Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty(a)
Strong acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty(a)
Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncerrtain(b)
Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty(a)
(a) - logically invalid positions (unless supported by substantiating tested objective empirical evidence - strong conviction in the validity of evolution is based on the massive amount of objective evidence and testing). (b) - logically valid positions (if not contradicted by tested objective empirical evidence - continued belief in a falsified concept is delusion).
Now it I wanted to be pedantically consistent this scale would also have "medium acceptance" and "medium skepticism" to match the levels of confidence table, but these are relative categories.
Curiously, I see no inconsistencies between this scale and the previous sections.
Do you agree? yes or no
A weak acceptance of the possible existence of god/s is consistent with low confidence concepts, where there is unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion etc. involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid.
Do you agree? yes or no
A strong acceptance of the likelihood of the scientific theory of evolution or the age of the earth is consistent with high confidence concepts, where there is validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
Do you agree? yes or no
Concepts regarding beliefs do not necessarily assume that all evidence represents reality, the question is a little more open, a little more vague in that regard, but these concepts still lie with the red area:
A weak acceptance of the possible existence of god/s is consistent with low confidence concepts, where there is unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion etc. involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid ...
... coupled with a strong acceptance of the likelihood of the scientific theory of evolution or the age of the earth is consistent with high confidence concepts, where there is validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence ...
... can exist within the blue zone, where the evidence is assumed to represent reality, without any necessary contradiction from one to the other.
Do you agree? yes or no
If you agree to all of these, then we can move on to the issue of impediments to understanding, before we get to your questions.
Re: Fantasy Books vs Religious Texts, fake tests vs real tests
RAZD writes:
It really astounds me that you ask this question, when this seemingly minor difference is critical to actually being able to substantiate the hypothetical conjecture.
There is a possibility that "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" are (may be) based on real experiences, while the "supernatural concepts contained in fictional novels" are known a priori to be fictional, and cannot rationally be considered supernatural beings.
Just to be clear - You seem to be saying that the difference between fictional supernatural concepts is dependent on the validity of subjective experiences as a form of evidence?
Fascinating. But you are going to need to clarify a few things with some actual explicit examples for it to really make any sense in a way that suggests it actually relates to real science rather than just your own ever changing but flawed set of charts and tables. (excellent formatting by the way). With that in mind how does your latest set of scales, charts etc. relate to the following:
Can we know that 0+1=1 is axiomatically and thus definitely true? (i.e. 1 on your scale)
Can we know that 1+1=1 is axiomatically and thus definitely NOT true? (i.e. 7 on your scale)
Can we tentatively know that the Earth is billions of years old rather than just a few days, weeks or years old? That this is "very probably" true (i.e. 2 on your scale)?
Can we tentatively know that the Earth is NOT a few days old? That Last Thursdayism and other such recent omphalisms are "very improbable" (i.e. 6 on your scale)?
Can we tentatively know that the motion of a soon-to-be-dropped-pen will be consistent with the objectively evidenced laws of physics (gravity, aerodynamics etc.) That this is "very probably" true (i.e. 2 on your scale)?
Can we tentatively know that the motion of a soon-to-be-dropped-pen will NOT be inconsistent with the objectively evidenced laws of physics (gravity, aerodynamics etc.) That the 1 second universe proposition is "very improbable" (i.e. 6 on your scale)?
Can we tentatively know that all filament bulbs produce light and heat as a result of electrical resistance? That this is "very probably" true (i.e. 2 on your scale)?
Can we tentatively know that the notion that SOME filament bulbs produce light and heat as a result of supernatural means (e.g. ethereal salamanders) is "very improbable"? (i.e. 6 on your scale)?
Bearing in mind the above........
Can we tentatively 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? That this is "very probably" true (i.e. 2 on your scale)?
Let's see where we get to with those before we move onto anything even more contentious.
You have also posted copies of my Modified Dawkins scale. This is the updated version of that scale that is generalized:
Without sufficient supporting or contradicting evidence:
Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty(a)
Strong acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty(a)
Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncerrtain(b)
Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty(a)
(a) - logically invalid positions (unless supported by substantiating tested objective empirical evidence - strong conviction in the validity of evolution is based on the massive amount of objective evidence and testing). (b) - logically valid positions (if not contradicted by tested objective empirical evidence - continued belief in a falsified concept is delusion).
Aside from the misuse of "logically invalid" (a classification which is both a category error and badly mistaken) it is obvious that this scale is missing something.
For instance we do NOT have "tested objective empirical evidence" that Lord Voldemort does not exist. Yet I do not think that anyone here would see anything wrong with assigning a '6' to this belief, or a '2' to the belief that Lord Voldemort does NOT exist (unless it is argued that they are too generous to the idea that Voldemort might exist).
It would be a (logically invalid) genetic fallacy to point to the fact that Lord Voldemort appears to be a character invented for a work of fiction as evidence that no such person existed. (And is it not possible that one of Voldemort's Death Eaters inspired J K Rowling to help prepare the world for their master's return ? Or perhaps Dumbledore did it to warn the world ?)
So in fact we can and do use a priori considerations to reasonably reach positions other than 3-5. Zen Deist is incorrect in saying that it is always wrong to hold positions 2 or 6 without "tested objective empirical evidence".
And in fact that is one of the major points in this long, long argument. But if Zen Deist is right, and we may only reach position 6 by means of empirical evidence then he must have more than a little uncertainty over the question of Lord Voldemort's existence - because he has not produced any "tested objective empirical evidence" that Lord Voldemort does NOT exist.
If you are going to insist that there is a fundamantal difference between "supernatural concepts" and "supernatural beings" you are going to have to give and example of each and explain exactly in what way it is they are different.
X writes:
That is what I think "bluegenes theory is actually saying".
LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!!!! USE EXACT QUOTES!!!! Be safe!
I have adddressed this, with quotes, countless times. Here Message 1172 being the most obvious example.
X writes:
The equipment is limited in it's ability to detect stuff.
Our scientific equipment is far more sensitive and wide ranging than our own unaided humanly limited perceptual apparatus (i.e. eyes, ears etc.) But humans are (apparently) detecting supernatural entities all the frikkin time.
It is contradictory to claim that all these technologically unaided human experiences are evidence of the supernatural whilst simultaneously denying that we are inherently unable to detect such things with the full gamut of our advanced scientific equipment.
Aside from the misuse of "logically invalid" (a classification which is both a category error and badly mistaken) it is obvious that this scale is missing something.
If you want to, I can show you how these are shown to be "logically invalid" with the absence, or without sufficient, supporting evidence (the noted condition).
For instance we do NOT have "tested objective empirical evidence" that Lord Voldemort does not exist. Yet I do not think that anyone here would see anything wrong with assigning a '6' to this belief, or a '2' to the belief that Lord Voldemort does NOT exist (unless it is argued that they are too generous to the idea that Voldemort might exist).
Are you claiming that we do not have objective evidence that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories?
Are you claiming that this is not a fact?
Are you claiming that this concept {that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories} is not tested and validated every time a person picks up any one of the books, reads it, puts it down and goes about their everyday life with the belief it is fiction rather than fact? That nobody seems concerned enough about Death Eaters and the like to start investigations to uncover them?
It would be a (logically invalid) genetic fallacy to point to the fact that Lord Voldemort appears to be a character invented for a work of fiction as evidence that no such person existed. (And is it not possible that one of Voldemort's Death Eaters inspired J K Rowling to help prepare the world for their master's return ? Or perhaps Dumbledore did it to warn the world ?)
Amusingly the existing objective evidence is that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories. Do you have any objective evidence that contradicts this?
Now you can make up stuff all day, PaulK, but the argument is that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories, and the evidence supports that.
Do you agree that there is objective evidence that {Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories} ... and that you do NOT have objective evidence that {Lord Voldemort does actually exist} - evidence that would contradict the concept that {Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories}?
Do you agree that there is supporting evidence and no contradictory evidence that {Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories}?
Would you say that the concept {Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories} is a
Low Confidence Concept - Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
Medium Confidence Concept - Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, a scientific hypothesis that has not (yet) been tested, that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or that is still in development
High Confidence Concept - Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
Curiously, I place it between III and IV -- where do you place it?
So in fact we can and do use a priori considerations to reasonably reach positions other than 3-5. Zen Deist is incorrect in saying that it is always wrong to hold positions 2 or 6 without "tested objective empirical evidence".
Yes, you can choose to be illogical -- that is faith (belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence) -- but you can't then claim that your position is not illogical.
quote:
If you want to, I can show you how these are shown to be "logically invalid" with the absence, or without sufficient, supporting evidence (the noted condition).
No, you can't. "Logically invalid" is a judgement about the form of an argument. It's not even the right judgement since judging an argument to be logically invalid merely tells us that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
A logically valid argument may lead to false conclusions and a logically invalid argument may be sufficiently strong that all rational people should assent to it. It is possible to construct a logically valid argument for any conclusion, no matter how obviously false it may be. Yet induction, one of the backbones of scientific reasoning is not logically valid.
So yes, your misuse of "logically invalid" is amusing, but nothing more.
quote:
Are you claiming that we do not have objective evidence that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories?
If I had intended to make such a claim I would have made it. My actual claim is that we do not have objective tested empirical evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist.
quote:
Now you can make up stuff all day, PaulK, but the argument is that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories, and the evidence supports that.
It's good to see that you think that the invention of ad hoc possibilities to preserve the mere possibility of existence is worthless (especially as I had the impression that you thought differently). However, they are sufficient to illustrate that arguing from the known facts about the origin of the books is not a logically valid argument that Lord Voldemort does not exist.
Thus, we still face the fact that you have not produced any objective tested empirical evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist. Instead you rely on a logically invalid a priori argument that does not even consider empirical evidence for or against the existence of Lord Voldemort.
Note that i do NOT say that your argument is wrong or irrational, I merely point out that it does not live up to the criteria you have set up in your Modified Dawkins Scale.
quote:
Yes, you can choose to be illogical -- that is faith (belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence) -- but you can't then claim that your position is not illogical.
So, you say that it is illogical to take the position that Lord Voldemort almost certainly does not exist ? Because you have not produced any objective tested empirical evidence to support such a conclusion.
quote:
If you want to, I can show you how these are shown to be "logically invalid" with the absence, or without sufficient, supporting evidence (the noted condition).
No, you can't. "Logically invalid" is a judgement about the form of an argument. It's not even the right judgement since judging an argument to be logically invalid merely tells us that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
Okay then, here it is:
Compare:
to:
OR:
If the logical form is true for any X then it is true for Y, now let Y = notX:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be possibly true ... which is in fact the case, so this is a valid argument, and a true conclusion is reached.
3, 4 and 5 fit this pattern. Possibility is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence.
versus:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. 1 and 7 fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
OR:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified as well. 2 and 6 fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
... It's not even the right judgement since judging an argument to be logically invalid merely tells us that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
Exactly -- it shows that the conclusion is groundless, and there is no indication that it can be true or false. You might as well be guessing.
A logically valid argument may lead to false conclusions ...
Correct -- the premises can be false. Structure doesn't tell you whether the premises are true or not.
... and a logically invalid argument may be sufficiently strong that all rational people should assent to it.
In other words it appeals to their confirmation bias, and then the logical fallacy of an "Appeal to Popularity" makes it true? http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/pop.htm
... It is possible to construct a logically valid argument for any conclusion, no matter how obviously false it may be. ...
The devil can cite scripture. The truth or falseness of the conclusion is external to the logic structure - it is based on the real-world evidence. The logical structure of a valid argument is like a mathematical equation, rather than objective analysis. They are used as tools to reach conclusions that -- in science -- are supported by objective evidence and testing.
... Yet induction, one of the backbones of scientific reasoning is not logically valid.
And this is just shy of the logical fallacy of the part for the whole and instead slides into the logical fallacy of omission (of the rest of the picture). Yes, inductive logic plays A part, but the backbone of scientific reasoning is testing and evaluating the evidence deductively, not making up hypothesis.
Correct, inductive logic is not deductive logic and doesn't meet the requirements of validity for deductive logic.
In science we look at some initial set of {evidence\data\information} and make an hypothetical guess(1) to explain it. This is the hypothesis being derived by inductive logic.
We look at the {evidence\data\information} Aa and see that it is also Ba:
Aa = Ba
and infer (inductive logic) the explanation -- the hypothesis -- that
Aall ≡ Ball
This then leads us to make falsification tests:
Is there an A1 ≠ B?
Is there a B2 ≠ A?
Finding either one invalidates the hypothesis, and this invalidation is due to deductive logic not inductive logic. We then go back, find another common denominator element that explains the new information, and make a new hypothetical guess(2) ...
Ab = Bb
... and repeat the test process.
IF on the other hand,
All Atested = B and
All Btested = A
THEN we deduce that the hypothesis does explain the new{evidence\data\information} and thus validates the hypothesis.
We do NOT conclude that the hypothesis is true (inductive logic).
We DO conclude that the hypothesis is valid for the known {evidence\data\information}, but may not be true for additional evidence\data\information (deductive logic).
AND we have grown the size of the {evidence\data\information} set, the size of the red area has grown ...
Ac = Aa + Atested Bc = Ba +Btested - and - Ac = Bc
... and start again with new tests, to develop new {evidence\data\information} that is evaluated deductively.
tree (a) is a pine tree ∴ (initial hypothesis) all trees are pine trees
tree (b) is a cypress, it is not a pine tree ∴ (new hypothesis)all trees are conifers
tree (c) is a fir, it is a conifer ∴ (valid hypothesis) all trees are conifers
tree (d) is an aspen ... etc
The rest has already been addressed
Enjoy
Notes: (1) - an informed guess, or an educated guess, based on the initial {evidence\data\information} (2) - an informed guess, or an educated guess, based on the initial plus tested {evidence\data\information}
However, it didn't really show what you claim. Mainly because it missed the role of plausibility and other a priori arguments in contributing to our evaluations - or other issues, such as faith, dogma etc. Essentially you strawman the positions you object to by ignoring the very considerations that cause people to take those positions, instead assuming that they do so based on a principle that they apply universally.
Practically nobody, for instance, says that "any X with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true", and your Dawkins scale has no place set aside for only those rare individuals.
quote:
Exactly -- it shows that the conclusion is groundless, and there is no indication that it can be true or false. You might as well be guessing.
More accurately it shows that the argument does not give us a reason to believe the conclusion. But it doesn't give us a reason to reject the conclusion either. So logical invalidity is a flaw of the argument, not the conclusion.
quote:
In other words it appeals to their confirmation bias, and then the logical fallacy of an "Appeal to Popularity" makes it true? http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/pop.htm
So you consider inductive arguments to be "confirmation bias" and an "appeal to popularity". Interesting. As well as any argument that Lord Voldemort does not exist because he is a fictional character invented by J K Rowling. After all, the argument is not logically valid...
quote:
And this is just shy of the logical fallacy of the part for the whole and instead slides into the logical fallacy of omission (of the rest of the picture). Yes, inductive logic plays A part, but the backbone of scientific reasoning is testing and evaluating the evidence deductively, not making up hypothesis.
Inductive logic is the only way to find general laws. Throw that out, and you throw out all the science that works on finding such laws - and the greater body of science that relies on them. That's a lot of science.
You are not even strictly correct in saying that invalidation is deductive logic. There are always sources of error. There are always ad hoc hypotheses that could protect a theory from falsification. Strict deductive logic is not enough, sometimes scientists have to say "the theory is too well-confirmed, the anomalous result must be wrong" (this is pretty much what is happening at CERN with the "faster than light" neutrinos) and sometimes they have to say "we've gone too far protecting the theory with auxiliary hypotheses, time to replace it". Naive falsificationism is not the way science works.
quote:
The rest has already been addressed
Then I must take it as confirmed that you think that is UNREASONABLE to think that Lord Voldemort almost certainly does not exist (your position 6), and REASONABLE to think that it is more likely than not that Lord Voldemort does exist (your position 3).
If you are going to insist that there is a fundamantal difference between "supernatural concepts" and "supernatural beings" you are going to have to give and example of each and explain exactly in what way it is they are different.
here from Dictionary.com
being noun 1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence). 2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night. 3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear. 4. something that exists: inanimate beings. 5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
I think we can dismiss 2 and 3 as off topic. 1 is then implied in 4 and 5.
Existence in the real world.
When we add the modifier "fictional", then the being in question does not exist in the real world. For many people "God" has existence in their view of the real world. For everyone, a 'fictional god" has no existence in the real world. So a "fictional Supernatural Being" does not exist in the real world. If it's just "Supernatural Being", then this means we have to allow for the ability of it to actually exist, considering the structure of the language, even if only for a moment.
Concepts are mental representations in minds that are sufficiently advanced enough. There abundant examples of Supernatural Concepts that do not exist in the real world. You, yourself, have made up plenty in the Peanut Gallery thread. And there also are abundant examples of Natural Concepts that have a real world counterpart, as in Modulous' horse concept corresponding to a real natural horse, a being existing in the real world.
If there is a fictional Supernatural Being Concept, then there is no corresponding Supernatural Being in the real world. But if the modifier "fictional" is stripped off, then, by structure, there might be a real Supernatural Being that corresponds to the Concept. The Concept could be the same in both cases, as you might argue it is for the character "God" in the George Burns movie or the character "God" in Bruce Almighty - both fictional - and the character "God" in the Bible, which many are not willing to concede is fictional.
Suppose we have some arbitrary Supernatural Being Concept. For a moment we must consider that there is a Supernatural Being out in the real world that corresponds to this Concept. When we find out it's just the Flying Spaghetti Monster created by Bobby Henderson, then the possibility of his creation actually existing out in the real world vanishes to 0.0. But the Concept is still alive & well. We didn't kill the Concept.
Did that help?
Our scientific equipment is far more sensitive and wide ranging than our own unaided humanly limited perceptual apparatus (i.e. eyes, ears etc.) But humans are (apparently) detecting supernatural entities all the frikkin time.
It is contradictory to claim that all these technologically unaided human experiences are evidence of the supernatural whilst simultaneously denying that we are inherently unable to detect such things with the full gamut of our advanced scientific equipment.
Isn't it?
Probably. But I'm not sure. I think that whole issue of subjective evidence can only come into play after the full gamut of our advanced scientific equipment has shown nothing can be detected. The degree of tentativity from any use of subjective evidence would have to be much more tentative, in some cases so tentative that it is no better than a WAGNER (Wild Assed Guess Not Easily Refuted).
Re: Fantasy Books vs Religious Texts, fake tests vs real tests
Hi Straggles,
Still at it?
Just to be clear - You seem to be saying that the difference between fictional supernatural concepts is dependent on the validity of subjective experiences as a form of evidence?
Just to be clear fictional novels are fiction by definition, that is fact. There is nothing subjective about this. There is in fact legal considerations regarding fictional characters being made up to prevent lawsuits.
Characters in fictional novels made up by authors are not real people\characters.
This too is fact.
Dick Tracy is a comic book character :: fact Dick Tracy is a fictional private eye :: Dick Tracy ≡ fiction Dick Tracy is NOT a real private eye :: Dick Tracy ≠ real Real Private eyes exist :: fact
The existence of real private eyes cannot be determined from the Dick Tracy comics, although it can be inferred that a fictional type of character may exist in reality as the source of inspiration for the fiction, that is nothing but hypothetical guessing.
Certainly the non-existence of real private eyes cannot rationally be deduced or inferred from the comics.
Nor can the hypothesis be rationally made that real private eyes are all fictional because Dick Tracy is a fictional.
Fictional characters can never support the concept that real people are fictions.
Do you understand this? Yes No
Just to be clear - You seem to be saying that the difference between fictional supernatural concepts is dependent on the validity of subjective experiences as a form of evidence?
Begging the question again, as per usual.
The difference between KNOWN portrayals of FICTIONAL supernatural {concepts\essences\presences} and the supernatural {concepts\essences\presences} found in religious texts, is that one is KNOWN to be fictional and CANNOT be real supernatural {concepts\essences\presences} while the other is UNTESTED and thus it is NOT KNOWN whether or not they are or can be REAL supernatural {concepts\essences\presences}
Do you understand this? Yes No
Pretending that fictional concepts test your conjecture {that all supernatural beings are fictional} is false, and the fact that it is even considered evidence is astounding in a group of people that claim to be rational science oriented folk.
Are there any which are known to be anything else?
There are many that are documented in religious texts and experiences that are untested. That means that you cannot logically claim that they are not possible real supernatural characters.
Finding a REAL supernatural {concepts\essences\presences} would invalidate your hypothetical conjecture.
Therefore you need to
have a test that can differentiate real presence from imagination
start testing areas that are untested: religious texts etc.
stop pretending and actually apply the scientific method.
Do you understand this? Yes No
Not quite. The only known source of such things leads to the inductive, falsifiable and tentative conclusion that you find so distressing.
Do you realize that {the only known source of such things is imagination} and {all such things are imagination} is saying the same thing?
Asserting one as true (when it has not been demonstrated) is not providing evidence for the other being true, but that you are disguising your conclusion in your premise? That you are begging the question (again?)?
quote:Begging the question fallacy - Advancing an argument on the basis of statements which are assumed but need themselves to be proved, or assuming the conclusion or part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. (Sometimes called circular reasoning.)
Do you understand this? Yes No
Do you accept the role of inductive reasoning in scientific theories?
Do you accept the role of deductive reasoning in science to arrive at conclusions from the evidence?
Inductive reasoning only gets you to the guess\conjecture\hypothesis.
Then deductive reasoning takes over, developing falsification tests, running tests and experiments, evaluating results and forming conclusions about whether or not the evidence supports the hypothesis.
If you are going to insist that there is a fundamantal difference between "supernatural concepts" and "supernatural beings" you are going to have to give and example of each and explain exactly in what way it is they are different.
X writes:
Existence in the real world.
But that makes absolutely no sense in the context of bluegenes theory. As bluegenes himself has already pointed out to you countless times.
bluegenes to X writes:
It would only be about real extant SBs that have an existence outside our minds if such a thing could be shown to exist, in which case the theory would be falsified and non-existence.
Short of falsification, there's no known difference between SBs and SB concepts.
If you understood, from the phrasing of the theory, that I meant that we humans have both invented supernatural beings and then manufactured real ones, I think you could have thought a little harder about it.
In English, we would say "Harry Potter is a book about a wizard", not "Harry Potter is a book about a wizard-concept." Or "fantasy novels often concern supernatural beings", etc.
When we say that the creation mythologies contain many different supernatural beings, we are not making a declaration about the existential state of those beings.
Zeus is described as a supernatural being, whether he exists or not.
If you want to pursue this idea that there is a fundamental difference between "supernatural concepts" and "supernatural beings" you are going to have to give an example of a supernatural being that isn't merely a supernatural concept.
I don't think you will be able to.
X writes:
Did that help?
Not at all. You seem to be suggesting that the prefix "fictional" makes something non-existent by definition. But Voldermort (for example) is NOT non-existent by definition. Indeed as PaulK has pointed out it could conceivably be the case that Dumbledore has magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts.
There is no objective empirical evidence against this proposition. Which I suppose makes me a rampant pseudoskeptic for dismissing it as "deeply improbable".....?
X writes:
When we add the modifier "fictional", then the being in question does not exist in the real world.
The prefix "fictional" simply refers to what people believe. No-one actually believes Voldermort exists. Therefore it is tagged as "fictional". Should there ever be a cult of Potterists they will no doubt object to this description. If I describe Satan as "fictional" no doubt some Christians will complain and others will nod in sage agreement. The term "fictional" is nothing more than an expression of belief. You need to stop pretending that it is any more than that with regard to the equivalence between "supernatural concepts" and "supernatural beings".
Straggler writes:
It is contradictory to claim that all these technologically unaided human experiences are evidence of the supernatural whilst simultaneously denying that we are inherently unable to detect such things with the full gamut of our advanced scientific equipment. Isn't it?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
