Scientific Knowledge

Is it? Who decides what is "fiction" and what isn't? I put it to you that the prefix "fictional" simply refers to what people believe.The prefix "fictional" doesn't make something non-existent by definition. 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 that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable. So why are you such a "pseudoskeptic" with regard to the existence of Voldermort?

Hi Straggles, Is there a point to this that applies to the topic?There is objective empirical evidence that the books and characters are fantasy fictionThere is no objective empirical evidence contradicting this.

quote:

---

relative likelihood of being real	more evidence	less evidence
Confirming	more possibility	less possibility
Contradicting	less possibility	more possibility

...

1. when there is more confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there is even greater possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
2. when there is more contradicting evidence and less confirming evidence, there is even lesser possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
3. 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
4. when there is more confirming evidence and more contracting evidence, there are more conflicting possibilities (and more uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not).

---

Misusing the term doesn't mean it applies.We have objective empirical evidence that the books and characters are fantasy fictionYOU have no evidence contradicting this.
YOU have not supported your negative claim with objective evidence. Including your belief that you have a theory?Seems pretty convenient to me: whatever you don't like is branded "fictional." Sounds more and more like some creationists here. Robert Byers for example.Invoking 'fiction' or 'imagination' to dismiss concepts rather than investigate them is not the enlightened, open minded path to understanding reality you seem to think it is. It is opposed to investigation and impedes further understanding. As human history and the steady march of scientific understanding shows, the dismissal of concepts as unfounded has been shown wrong time and again.Is fiction\imagination your version of a "god-did-it" explanation? Seems that way.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : .Edited by Zen Deist, : ..

Hi StragglesCuriously, I was trying to clarify your position before getting to your questions. You talked about inconsistency before you listed your questions, so you must have felt it was more important. That is why I felt it necessary to clarify what you thought was inconsistent. you must have missed this: You have a bit of a ways to go before we get to those questions, work with me and we can get there sooner, so patience.If you claim they are flawed then why not take this opportunity to point out where they are flawed and how they could be corrected.If you are complaining about the changes, then do you think they make the information better or worse? Can you suggest ways to make them better?Now, I am open-minded, so if you want to suggest improvements, then I'm willing to consider incorporating them.Lets take Message 123 step by step.That would be constructive, don't you think?EnjoyEdited by Zen Deist, : r at end of subtitle

Hi StragglesNow Message 123 Part 2a:

quote:

---

Confidence

​

...

quote:

---

RAZD's Concept Scale (revised)

1. Zero Confidence Concepts
   1. No evidence, subjective or objective, purely hypothetical arguments,
   2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
2. Low Confidence Concepts
   1. 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
   2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
3. Medium Confidence Concepts
   1. 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
   2. Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made tentatively, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.
4. High Confidence Concepts
   1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
   2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

​

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.

---

...

---

Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noMore to come.Enjoy

---

Note Message 141 proposes modification as follows: Edited by Zen Deist, : added

Hi StragglesNow Message 123 Part 2b:

quote:

---

... Confidence continued

​

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:

​

1. when there is more confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there is even greater possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
2. when there is more contradicting evidence and less confirming evidence, there is even lesser possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
3. 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
4. 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

---

Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noDo you want to include subjective evidence (hearsay, anecdotal, beliefs, opinions, evidence that is open to interpretation)? It is part of our cognitive landscape, yes? PaulK appealed to it: And we can still combine confirming and contradicting evidence to get the fuller picture -- 1a + 2a + 3b + 4b would add up to high confidence -- wouldn't you think?Is that an improvement, or is it getting unwieldy? I think it is a little cumbersome and seems to give more value to a lot of subjective evidence over a little objective evidence, and this conflict would be most apparent when one is confirming and the other is contradictory -- don't you think?I prefer the original table: Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noMore to come.EnjoyEdited by Zen Deist, : .

Hi StragglesNow Message 123 Part 3:

quote:

---

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:

1. Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty^(a)
2. Strong acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty^(a)
3. Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, but some uncertainty^(b)
4. Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncerrtain^(b)
5. Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, but some uncertainty^(b)
6. Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty^(a)
7. 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

---

Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noI intended this to be about positions in general and not specifically about atheist\theist positions, so it may be appropriate to make it conform better with the Levels of Confidence Table. I would also move the zero point to be more appropriate: OR should we just use the concept confidence table for both accepted and skeptical beliefs, and not get tangled up in the shortcomings of the Dawkins Scale and any modifications of it?Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noStill more to come.EnjoyEdited by Zen Deist, : .

Hi StragglesNow Message 123 the wrap up

quote:

---

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.

---

Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noNow that wasn't too bad was it?EnjoyEdited by Zen Deist, : .

That is wonderful to hear PaulK. Welcome to the club. We are currently taking applications for new members.Our initiation process is different for every new member. Yours will be for you to use the above comment in a unbiased way relative to all discussions, including, yes, including, wait for it... bluegenes theory.Take care now.

I can agree to the above with one proviso. The proviso is this - Where we have a known truth or high confidence concept where "conclusions regarding probable reality can be made" we are also able to make equally conclusive conclusions regarding mutually exclusive alternatives. For example:If we know that 0+1=1 is axiomatically and thus definitely true then we can know with equal confidence that 1+1=1 is axiomatically and thus definitely NOT true.If we scientifically know that the Earth is billions of years old and consider this a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality then conversely we know that it is very improbable that in reality the Earth is just a few days, weeks or years old.If we scientifically know that the motion of a soon-to-be-dropped-pen will be consistent with the objectively evidenced laws of physics (gravity, aerodynamics etc.) and consider this a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality then it is very improbable that in reality my soon-to-be-dropped-pen will behave as per the 1 second universe proposition.If we scientifically know that ALL filament bulbs produce light and heat as a result of electrical resistance and consider this a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality then it is very improbable in reality that SOME filamnet bulbs are being powered by untested supernatural means (e.g. ethereal salamanders).In short - Where we have an evidenced conclusion which is justifiably deemed "probable" mutually exclusive but untested conclusions can legitimately be deemed "improbable".Do you agree to my proviso?

Dude you are the one who raised religious texts as a form of evidence in a thread called 'Scientific Knowledge'. There is objective empirical evidence that humans are deeply prone to invoking false positive agency (including - but far from limited to - supernatural concepts) in order to explain the things they find significant and baffling. Ditto there is no objective empirical evidence contradicting the above as the cause of human belief in gods.So case closed then? You may have missed the fact that the ability and proclivity of humans to invent such concepts is somewhat more evidenced than the notion that god did anything at all. But you haven't tested the Dumbledore magical mind manipulation proposition so, by the terms of your own argument, you are a pseudoskeptic to reject it in the way that you are doing.That is PaulK's point. And he is quite correct to make it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I do indeed. And with that spirit of friendship and helpfulness in mind I have suggested an additional component to your analysis.It is based on the principle of contradiction and is detailed in my post above subtitled 'Probables And The Corresponding Improbables'.Essentially it says that where something is legitimately deemed "probable" the law of contradiction stipulates that mutually exclusive alternatives must correspondingly be deemed "improbable".Call it 'Straggler's amendment'.Other than that keep up the fine work.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Really? Really?Xongsmith — Pick up a pen. Now hold your arm out. In a moment I am going to ask you to let go of this pen to see what it does. But before you let go of the pen just stop for one moment and ponder. Ask yourself just how confident you are that the motion of the pen will be consistent with the objectively evidenced laws of physics. Ask yourself how unlikely it is that the pen will do something like loop the loop and poke your eye out or hover for a second before shooting out of the window. Ask yourself how unlikely you think it is that the pen will do anything other than obey the laws of physics as currently understood. Ask yourself how unlikely you really consider the proposition that the universe was created a few seconds ago with subtly different physical laws (particularly with regard to dropped pens) than the ones we falsely remember. Now honestly and truthfully consider whether or not very improbable is a fair expression of your conclusion.Now drop the pen.Honestly - What did it do? Honestly — Was very improbable a fair assessment of your conclusion before dropping that pen?Was your conclusion scientific? Was your conclusion pseudoskeptical? Was your conclusion consistent with a 6 on our old friend the Dawkins scale?

But but but....Chuck you haven't done any tests to falsify the proposition 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. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it.There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable.Any rejection of this untested proposition is comparable to Ben Franklin standing in a field without a means to test for electricity.Isn't it?

Hi Straggles As a source of possible supernatural essence\presence that is not tested. Quite correct. And I have asked you et al for what your test is and what your methodology is that can produce positive results and guard against false negative results. So -- in other words -- you concede that there currently is no test method or methodology that can differentiate fictional concepts from potentially real supernatural presence\essence.You have taken the rope offered and laid out ... and blithely hanged your hypothesis as untestable, as you have now shown it to be, by your own arguments.Forget the IPU, you have shown that you cannot determine that a documented fictional character is actually fictional and not supernatural.Well done, I concede your point: it is untested.It is untested because it is untestable without a definitive test and a methodology that can produce positive results and guard against false negative results. As opposed to the ability to find natural explanations through the use of human imagination and the testing of concepts, and where the scientific method discards concepts that are contradicted by evidence that shows something else. Not by the assumption that some concepts are false.Invoking imagination as the only explanation is limiting your ability to approach the issue of what is possible. That {the human imagination is the only source of some concepts} has in the past been shown to fail in the inference that the concept was pure fiction. This history of science is littered with cases that were initially dismissed out of hand, but that have been shown to be valid.All concepts originate in the mind :: that is how we perceive reality, through concepts of it.At best you can conclude that SOME concepts may be fiction. That still leaves you with the problem of identifying which ones are pure fiction and differentiating them from ones that have some potential or possible validity and then testing them.You still need to be able to differentiate fictional concepts from potentially real supernatural presence\essence.You still need a definitive test and a methodology that can produce positive results and guard against false negative results. Ah the tu quoque logical fallacy again. My cup now runneth over, my day's already complete Invoking imagination as the only explanation is limiting your ability to approach the issue of what is possible.Enjoy.

You cannot test the Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition. No. But I would vehemently deny that this is any rational basis upon which to consider Voldermort anything other than made-up.So where do you put Voldermort on your scale then RAZ?For the record I'm a 6 (+ some). Does this make me a Voldermort pseudoskeptic?What are you on your own scale with regard to Voldermort?