quote:The characters in the bible are real, supported by the acknowledgement by the authors ...
Except that we do not know the original authors of the original narratives, nor what the original narratives said, nor what the authors claimed about those narratives.
quote: ... that they are real and tested by the reactions of people reading the bible that believe it is a fact that they are real rather than fiction.
Using his own logic he should be confident that God exists.
Which in this case is contradicted by some people that believe it is fiction.
And it is contradicted by variations in the narratives with different religious sects and people that believe god/s exist but not the way portrayed in the bible.
And it is contradicted in some parts by tested objective empirical evidence -- ie that there was no WW flood.
When we look at the possibilities:
the bible is 100% true
the bible is partly true partly fantasy
the bible is 100% fantasy
The tested objective contradictory evidence means the first possibility is (high confidence) very unlikely, but the others are still possible.
You haven't used MY logic but a parody of it. Which should be obvious.
This is a consistent pattern with you, and one reason I normally do not respond to you anymore.
In regard to PaulK's assertions:
When this was put forward earlier, I raised two points against it. The first was that we could not exclude the logical possibility of J K Rowling having "inside knowledge" - perhaps unknowingly.
When we talk about the burden of proof, when someone (paraphrased) says "I have written a fictional fantasy with fictional characters that I have invented" -- they bear no burden of proof to show that this is the case.
When someone (paraphrased) says "but they could be true" -- then they are making a claim that needs to be substantiated. So far not one whit of evidence has been provided to cause anyone to think there is any validity in the claim that the stories or characters could be true. This is a Zero Confidence claim.
Thus Zen Deist has still offered no empirical evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist and has in fact come to that conclusion by implicit a priori reasoning.
The burden of proof falls on the one claiming it is true, and not on the one that says the claim has not been substantiated, especially while the claim that it is fictional IS substantiated, rather than derived from a priori assumptions.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : added response to non-reply ad hominem
I notice that you would rather respond to my post than to PaulK's. I guess that is because you still want to keep using the argumentum ad populum you keep relying on.
Your dishonesty is obvious and pathetic.
{abe} And from your edit, it is obvious that you are still clinging to your argumentum ad populum. "People believe in stuff which is empirical evidence of the truth!!"
You are guilty of all the debating practices that you accuse others of. If I thought you were debating honestly, I would quote your own posts to rebut your latest post. But I don't, so I won't.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
Re: Is the Scientific Approach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
Xongsmith - What does experience (combined with critical thinking skills) tell you is the necessary source of propositions for which there is no evidence? What does experience (in conjunction with those critical thinking skills) tell you about the likelihood of evidentially baseless propositions being correct in comparison to objectively evidenced conclusions?
X writes:
Zen Deist says....
RAZ is subjectively picking and choosing which untestable notions to reject, which to treat as some sort of axioms and which to demand his pointless brand of absolute agnosticism towards.
When a man of RAZ's years is unable to state an unequivocally atheistic position towards the 'Hogwarts Hypothesis' it rally is time to stop taking anything they say seriously.
Straggler writes:
If one chooses to take as one's "postulate" the idea that the bible is literally true and anything which disagrees with it is simply deception why is this "postulate" any less valid than yours? There have been creationists who take such a view. Why are they wrong?
X writes:
You want to pick apart "the idea that the bible is literally true and anything which disagrees with it is simply deception"? Deception = Lying? The experiences* you refer to CAN BE REPEATED. Everyone can observe them. Those biblical literalists cannot claim this.
Exactly!!!!!
The scientific method of knowing is demonstrably superior. It makes predictions. It is continually being tested. Which is exactly why you don't need to go round defining axioms.
If a method of knowing is able to demonstrate itself as superior in practical terms then you don't need to rely on some sort of baseless axiomatic approach in order to justify it do you?
X writes:
Isn't the very process of "simply relying on experience as evidence"* the same as accepting that substantiated objective scientific evidence describing whatever phenomenon is, in fact, something that is not LYING TO YOU???
Not quite. Certainly not in the pick and choose manner RAZ is applying it. There is a subtle difference between making base axiomatic style assumptions and accepting as real continually updated and tested aspects of experience.
But however you phrase it - Experience tells us that objectively evidenced explanations and conclusions are far more likely to be correct than evidentially baseless propositions - No mater how untestable or unfalsifiable these scenarios, entities and notions are defined to be.
So I suggest a consistent approach to all such propositions. Is that unreasonable or unscientific of me?
Why do we seek objective evidence as the basis of our scientific theories if objectively evidenced explanations are no more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality than propositions which lack such evidence?
CS writes:
Its common knowledge that scientific theories don't consider themselves to be The Truth.
Then you need to ask yourself what they are and why it is they are so successful in comparison to other methods of knowing.
Re: Is the Scientific Approach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
If RAZ has provided a rating on his own scale I have yet to see it. Nor do I think he can without contradicting himself.
See Message 190 and if you can find where he has placed himself on his own scale with respect to that question please quote and link to that.
But I'll bet you won't be able to find an explicit answer. Because how can RAZ place himself on his scale without admitting that untestable propositions can be legitimately rejected?
Ben Franklin in a field without a means to test for electricity etc. etc. As RAZ put it.
Here is a summary - Rather than subjectively picking and choosing which baseless but untestable propositions can be rejected, which need be assumed a-priori and which demand the RAZDian brand of absolute agnosticism why not take the scientific approach and treat all such propositions equally and consistently?
Why do we seek objective evidence as the basis of our scientific theories if objectively evidenced explanations are no more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality than propositions which lack such evidence?
One of the other reasons is because it works. Problems get solved, advances are made, and we get shit done, all the while nobody is musing over whether or not we're more accurately describing reality than some other proposition.
Have you ever heard of verisimilitude?
Yes, but never in a science class or lab....
Here is a summary - Rather than subjectively picking and choosing which baseless but untestable propositions can be rejected, which need be assumed a-priori and which demand the RAZDian brand of absolute agnosticism why not take the scientific approach and treat all such propositions equally and consistently?
Yeah, forget about 'em and don't even address them!
Which reminds me that you didn't answer my question:
quote: why would a scientific explanation even address a baseless proposition?
If you find Message 205 difficult to read, and you have trouble following it, you have only yourself to blame: instead of ONE simple post you repeated your request several times with several "spandrels" that did not add to or further the debate, they just obscured your original post. Especially when they were piled one on top of the other in quick succession at a time when I said I have a heavy work load AND poor connections.
This is already answered by Message 205, meaning waiting just a little bit you would find your repetition here is completely unnecessary, pointless and already refuted.
Of course Message 205 is significantly cluttered by including each similar post by Straggles when ONE would be sufficient.
Any more such posts will be safely ignored as irrelevant, and I will choose which ones to reply to based on whether they move the debate forward or not.
Emphasis added. The point of that post was to drive home to you that such behavior is counterproductive: YOU were being counterproductive, YOU have cluttered this thread with unnecessary posts. It's like you went on a sudden angry rampage when patience would serve you better. For goodness sake get a grip.
You seem to expect me to answer each and every one of you pet peeve pecadillio posts, yet you blithely ignore my posts that DO answer and address them and the ones that discuss the issues. If I don't answer ONE of your endless repetitions of the same argument then any answers to others are ignored when you haul it out to ask me to answer it. This is dishonest. It IS answered, and you can READ it. The fact that you (obviously) haven't read (the alternative is that you haven't understood) Message 205 is NOT MY PROBLEM.
Please either demonstrate your sanity/honesty or cease participation in this thread
Can I ask the same of you? That you behave sanely and respectfully, and deal with the issues rather than venting your anger in unreasonable ways?
I thought we were making great progress with cooperation, and then suddenly you go all medieval on me.
I think I know the reason, but that is irrelevant.
Read Message 205, and if you still have a question when you are done, then ask me. Politely. No theatrics.
who's at fault for message 205? it's a response . . . to badgering & stalking
Hi Percy,
Given the length of his posts, is there anything RAZD hasn't already said? I'm curious, how many people actually read all of Message 205? Anyone? Are there many who share my objection to these repetitive hashes of text and quotes of things already said many times?
Which, sadly, is the POINT of Message 205 -- that the repetitive "hashes of text and quotes of things already said many times" by STRAGGLER are the real problem here.
Look at Message 205 and you will see that the reason it is so long is because each of Straggles' requests for the same information is repeated verbatum -- so you can see that each repetition is unnecessary -- and you will ALSO note that they all occur in a short time span when I was not on board and could not have responded to the FIRST post. Not only that, he has peppered posts to other people with insinuations that are disparaging and false. It's like he went on a mad stalking rampage.
He piles on requests for reply and then ignores one when he gets it, then asks again. See Message 215. That ain't right, that ain't honest.
Nobody should have to put up with that kind of aggressive irrational stalking/badgering and abusive behavior in a debate.
Are those involved in this ongoing multi-thread discussion determined to continue until the other side says, "Oh, I guess you're right." Face reality, it ain't gonna happen.
I suggest you look at who is being the most disruptive on this thread as the culprit of making it multi-threaded and long-winded and disrupted by repeated posts that do not further the debate on the issues.
Re: Is the Scientific Approach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
RAZD writes:
Some "Untestable Propositions" may be ignored, yes. Particularly when the fall in the "so what" or "known fictional" category or when they fall outside the a priori assumptions.
Straggler writes:
RAZ is subjectively picking and choosing which untestable notions to reject, which to treat as some sort of axioms and which to demand his pointless brand of absolute agnosticism towards.
*nods* I think it is normally called "making it up as you go along".
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
Re: Scientific Explanations and a priori assumptions
Hi Catholic Scientist,
Here is a summary - Rather than subjectively picking and choosing which baseless but untestable propositions can be rejected, which need be assumed a-priori and which demand the RAZDian brand of absolute agnosticism why not take the scientific approach and treat all such propositions equally and consistently?
Yeah, forget about 'em and don't even address them!
Or, curiously, just safely, consistently, ignore them, because they are already outside the bounds of the a priori assumptions of science. We already assume they do not apply to scientific studies, so why does Straggles need to be continually, incredulously, dredging them up after this has been pointed out?
Do you ever wonder why it is always Straggles that brings these up? Why he needs to post false straw man ("RAZDian brand of absolute agnosticism"(1)) positions rather than just simply address the issues? Why he is so angry and aggressive about it?
No, not in the colloquial sense, but from a scientific stance, these propositions are simply ignored, not really rejected.
Correct. When you make the assumption that the evidence truthfully represents reality, then you safely, unconditionally, justifiably, ignore any and all concepts related to the evidence being a lie..
I honestly don't understand why Straggles STILL has a problem with this.
Getting back to sanity ... and maybe some cooperation
Hi Straggles,
If in a thread supposedly about scientific knowledge we cannot all agree that Lord Voldermort is all-but-certainly made-up then it is time to call the men in white coats to take someone away.
If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.
Amusingly, I fully agree that we should set this aside, because (as I have previously said) it is a fact that this is a fictional character, created by the author of a series of fantasy fiction books.
Message 205: The objective, empirical, repeatable, evidence is that (a) the books are fantasy fiction and (b) that the characters in them are fictional, supported by (c) the acknowledgement by the author that they are, in fact, fictions, and also supported by (d) the classification as fantasy fiction in book stores and libraries, and finally, (e) tested by the reactions of people reading the stories that believe it is a fact that they are fiction rather than real documentaries or narratives.
Do a search and see if you can find any claim that Voldemort is real, versus:
quote:In a 2001 interview, Rowling said Voldemort was invented as a nemesis for Harry Potter, the main protagonist of the series, and she intentionally did not flesh out Voldemort's backstory at first ...
quote:Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by the British author J. K. Rowling. The books chronicle the adventures of the adolescent wizard Harry Potter and his best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The main story arc concerns Harry's quest to overcome the evil dark wizard Lord Voldemort, whose aim is to subjugate non-magical people, conquer the wizarding world, and destroy all those who stand in his way, especially Harry Potter.
This is objective evidence that the stories and characters are fiction.
Then we have inferred testing of the concept that the books are fictional and the characters are fiction by the way people react to them:
do people buy the books as fiction or as real stories? Fictional Real
do people reading the books think the characters are fictional or real? Fictional Real
has anyone taken any precautions in case the books\characters are real? Yes None known
due to the high interest in the novels, would any group making such preparations be noticed and reported on? Likely yes Not likely
There is no record of anyone thinking they are anything but fiction that I can find.
quote:Since the 30 June 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide.[2] The series has also had some share of criticism, including concern for the increasingly dark tone. As of June 2011[update], the book series has sold about 450 million copies and has been translated into 67 languages,[3][4] and the last four books consecutively set records as the fastest-selling books in history.
So that amounts to at least 450 million inferred tests of the book being fantasy fiction and that the characters are fictional, with no known\reported contraditions.
Nor has any contradictory evidence (that the characters should be considered real) been presented, so that position is not supported.
450 million bits of evidence that the book is a fantasy fiction, and that the characters are fictional, and 0 contradictory bits of evidence
There is way much more evidence that the books and characters are fictional than that they are real, and there is no contradictory evidence for this position, therefore it is logically way more likely that the books and characters are really fiction.
There is so much evidence for the books being fantasy that we can regard this as an accepted FACT by virtually all people.
Do you agree? Yes No
But there is a better way, imho, to go about this scale testing fixation of yours -- forget the silly "Dawkins Scale" or any version of it (I'm willing to chuck mine) that relies on similar subjective judgments, and instead let's just go ahead and use the new and improvedRAZD\Straggler Concept Scale that we have agreed to:
This scale has objective criteria for each of the different levels, rather than subjective judgments.
Because of the strong evidence I have previously cited for the whole set of books and the characters in them to be considered fantasy fiction as a fact, and given the absence of any contradictory evidence to this, I can safely take a (+4) stance on the concept that the books are indeed fantasy fiction novels and that the characters are fictions. I consider this a fact, and have said so.
When this was put forward earlier, I raised two points against it. The first was that we could not exclude the logical possibility of J K Rowling having "inside knowledge" - perhaps unknowingly.
When we talk about the burden of proof, when someone (paraphrased) says "I have written a fictional fantasy with fictional characters that I have invented" -- they bear no burden of proof to show that this is the case.
When someone (paraphrased) says "but they could be true" -- then they are making a claim that needs to be substantiated. So far, not one whit of evidence has been provided to cause anyone to think there is any validity in the claim that the stories or characters could be true. This is a Zero Confidence claim.
Thus Zen Deist has still offered no empirical evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist and has in fact come to that conclusion by implicit a priori reasoning.
The burden of proof falls on the one claiming it is true, and not on the one that says the claim has not been substantiated, especially while the claim that it is fictional IS substantiated, rather than derived from a priori assumptions.
There is no evidence that the fantasy fiction series and characters should be considered anything but fictional stories and fictional characters.
Do you agree or disagree? Agree Disagree
Another issue I have asked you about is this slight modification to the scale:
Message 206: more cooperation + less nonsense = constructive
So do you agree with this:
(1) - perhaps this should say :
IV. Absolute Confidence Concepts
Established, or proven.
It is a fact.
We should probably also say that
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
High Confidence Concepts - are empirically tested
This would give us:
as a change to the concept table?
Do you agree or disagree with these changes? Agree Disagree
When we look at this table and the massive evidence presented above, can we not say:
It is a fact(a) that the books and characters are fictional.
and note that is a Level IV Absolute Confidence Concept ...
... or should we say this is a Level IV Extreme Confidence Concept to include a touch of scientific tentativity?
Do you disagree? Yes No
... Or are you going to argue for some "Stragglerian absolute ignosticism" here?
Enjoy.
Notes:
(a) - especially if we use the scientific definition of "fact"
I went back and counted. [Msg=205] seems to have replied to no less than 6 different posts by Straggler, all in 1 post, so of course it was long. I read through it all.
It was far easier to read through than Straggler's [Msg=42]. I think, but maybe I disremember.
You note:
Are those involved in this ongoing multi-thread discussion determined to continue until the other side says, "Oh, I guess you're right." Face reality, it ain't gonna happen.
I know...it just seems like something will happen - well, actually it already has in the form of by products of perhaps a useful nature. Certainly, in my case, I got to learn and slowly improve my dbCoding skills. FWIW
™ Version 4.2
(1)
