Xongsmith - What does experience tell you is the necessary source of propositions for which there is no evidence? In the absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever where but the minds of creative beings unrestrained by external truths in their conceptions can such notions come from? What does experience (in conjunction with those critical thinking skills) tell you about the likelihood of evidentially baseless propositions being correct? Possible in some philosophical sense. They cannot be discarded with absolute certainty. But "very improbable" as actual aspects of reality.
I put it to you that science need not rely on axioms or postulates as a means of rejecting ANY evidentially baseless propositions at all.
Rather than subjectively picking and choosing which evidentially baseless propositions to call "postulates", which ones to reject and which ones to demand RAZDian style agnosticism towards why not treat all consistently and equally? Why not treat the "Hogwarts Hypothesis" the same as Last Thursdayism the same as the notion that ethereal salamanders are powering some as yet untested filament bulbs the same as the Hindu Hypothesis the same as the one second universe proposition the same as the super being that lives outside the universe and cannot ever be detected the same as undetectable gravity gnomes etc. etc. etc.
The notion that any objectively evidenced explanation be weakened or called into question because it has failed to address an untestable but evidentially baseless proposition is ridiculous. The notion that we have to go round a priori rejecting some evidentially baseless notions but not others is also deeply flawed.
We know where evidentially baseless propositions (e.g. Last Thursdayism) are sourced from. Such things are defined so as to be completely experientially unknowable. But rather than the (frankly) fuckwitted notion that they therefore demand our complete agnosticism their unknowablility is their downfall. Because if they are defined such that they are unable to be evidenced then they can only have been imagined by beings like ourselves.
And whilst it is possible by some freak of coincidence that such imaginings have a genuine basis in reality the likelihood of this being so equates to us correctly randomly guessing about what might exist.
Do an EvC site search for the phrase 'hindu hypothesis' and the user name 'Zen Deist'. I think you will find the results most edifying on this matter.
No. I'm not going to do YOUR homework for you. This is incumbent upon you under the respectable umbrella of the forum guidelines. Yes - I could do it easily enough, but this would just make me look like your little dancing monkey.
Post the link & relevant quotebox, then show how your interpretation of it follows. Should be a piece of cake. Percy has made this easy enough for all. I just want to see you do it, for once, in this long and winding exchange with my brother. I know you can.
Re: Moving forward ... and maybe some additional cooperation
I am trying to find a baseline of agreement on your terms, on your scales (whichever one it is you are currently advocating)
Obviously this isn't going to be possible if you point blank refuse to explicitly reference your answer to your scale.
Straggler writes:
Where do you place yourself on the latest scale with regard to the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" being a made-up human fiction?
See Message 190 for the "Hogwarts Hypothesis" if you have forgotten what that is.
Is it a IV on your scale? Or something else? If so what?
Really RAZ an answer of a few characters (0, I, II, III or IV) and no repetition of anything said previously would be greatly appreciated and really add to clarity here.
Well I typed in 'hindu hypothesis' and 'Zen Deist' and the very first thing that came up led to the following:
Zen Deist writes:
Perhaps the universe has a built-in subliminal message: without a test for supernatural presence you don't know if this is imagination or detection, and you only assume a conclusion that fits your a priori conclusion.
Without a test for supernatural presence or involvement in ANYTHING we are left simply drawing conclusions on the basis of a priori assumptions for EVERYTHING aren't we? Science becomes one gigantic baseless assumption.
Should a psychiatrist treating a patient who hears the voice of God telling him to do all sorts of anti-social things prescribe medication on the basis that his patient is psychotic or does he need to falsify the Hindu Hypothesis first?
Are psychologists working on the evolutionary nature of religion expected to falsify every "unknowable" god before drawing a naturalistic and positively evidenced conclusion about the reasons people hold such beliefs?
If scientific conclusions regarding the origins of human supernatural beliefs demand testing of the untestable why doesn't every other scientific conclusion require the same?
Can we conclude that thunder and lightning are natural phenomenon or do we need to test whether Thor is undetectably willing the static electricity into existence first?
Can we conclude that all filament bulbs produce heat and light as a result of electrical resistance or do we need to test to see whether some as yet untested ones are powered by ethereal salamanders?
Can we conclude that spacetime curvature is the cause of gravitational effects or do we first need to eliminate the untestable notion that immaterial and undetectable (but mathematically savvy) gravity gnomes hare having a laugh by behaving in ways that are consistent with curved spacetime in order to cause us to think that?
Or - you know radical suggestion - We could take the scientific approach here and treat ALL evidentially baseless propositions in an identical fashion.
Things which are necessarily the products of flawed, creative wonderfully unrestrained by reality minds.
Re: Red Zone Untestable Concept vs Blue Zone Tested Concepts
bluegenes writes:
If someone here on EvC tells you that they have special psychic powers, and that these powers have led them to know that there is an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom who will be there for a week and will try to kill you while you're asleep, would you move out of your bedroom for a week? You cannot know whether the proposition is true or not (you're agnostic on it if you admit this), but you'd probably treat it as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, and sleep in your room as normal.
RAZD writes:
Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in. Message 510
Xongsmith - What does experience tell you is the necessary source of propositions for which there is no evidence?
Some must be made up. Probably a goodly amount. All? Not sure. Is it a waste of time for me? Probably. Not sure.
The notion that any objectively evidenced explanation be weakened or called into question because it has failed to address an untestable but evidentially baseless proposition is ridiculous.
Are you considering "an untestable but evidentially baseless proposition" that is at variance with the "objectively evidenced explanation"? And why would that be ridiculous? Because science, at the outset, has had to assume that substantiated objective evidence is telling us about actual reality and not telling us LIES. Any explanation that would mean some existing body of substantiated object evidence is not only just wrong, but has been actually LYING to us, cannot be seriously considered. Note that being wrong is okay, but LYING is not. LYING requires the intention of being dishonest. Things that have been well-accepted in the scientific community have been shown to be wrong many times later on, but never have they been shown to be intentionally dishonest. And there have been instances of intentional dishonesty, but they have never been well-accepted.
Rather than subjectively picking and choosing which evidentially baseless propositions to call "postulates", which ones to reject and which ones to demand RAZDian style agnosticism towards why not treat all consistently and equally?
Who the hell is calling any of your "evidentially baseless propositions" a postulate????? Get a grip. The short answer is that the different concepts you cite are in fact different. They are all not the same kind of "evidentially baseless propositions".
The notion that we have to go round a priori rejecting some evidentially baseless notions but not others is also deeply flawed.
The notion that all of these propositions fit into the same small bucket of whatever you mean by evidentially baseless notions is flawed.
Why not treat the "Hogwarts Hypothesis" the same as Last Thursdayism the same as the notion that ethereal salamanders are powering some as yet untested filament bulbs the same as the Hindu Hypothesis the same as the one second universe proposition the same as the super being that lives outside the universe and cannot ever be detected the same as undetectable gravity gnomes etc. etc. etc.
Lets take a gander at some of these things you mentioned, in order:
Hogwart's Hypothesis
Dead twice, because it is a fiction you made up and fictions are known to be off topic; and also dead because it would imply that a significant body of substantiated objective evidence is LYING to J.K.Rowling and the world at large. Out it goes.
Last Thursdayism
Dead because it would imply that significant body of substantiated objective evidence is LYING to us. Out it goes.
ethereal salamanders
Did you make this one up? I can't digger that, but assuming the creator of this concept is not going to be forthcoming, does this proposition imply any previous evidence is LYING? E&M is one of most most exhaustively explained subjects of the various branches of science. If there is something about this that would imply E & M is lying, then out it goes. If not, then it is different from the previous ones. Shove off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means.
the Hindu Hypothesis
Does this imply anywhere that any existing scientific evidence is LYING? Not that I know of. Shove off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means.
the one second universe
Implies that existing scientific evidence is LYING. Out it goes.
the super being that lives outside the universe and cannot ever be detected
This one must be your characterization of ZD's Deist God who "went off elsewhere to other things". Does this proposition imply anywhere that any existing scientific evidence is LYING? No. Shove off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means.
undetectable gravity gnomes
Does this proposition imply anywhere that any existing scientific evidence is LYING? No. Shove off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means.
So, by my count, we have at least 3 different kinds of things here:
1. known fictional creations, which are off topic.
2. concepts that would require a universe that LIES to us, which should be off topic.
3. the other stuff shoved off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means. I can't sweep all of these kinds away with the single word "ridiculous" until I have seen them. These may break up into subcategories someday later by some EvC folks yet to be determined, such as those things which are constructed to make ZERO difference to the observed universe. Some can be ignored by parsimony, much in the manner of dismissing a rotating coordinate system that would fix the Earth motionless at the center of the universe. Most of them are probably "ridiculous". But all? Hmmm. Not sure.
We should get away from 1. and 2. They should be ruled off topic. It's 3. that remains the issue.
Well I typed in 'hindu hypothesis' and 'Zen Deist' and the very first thing that came up led to the following:
Zen Deist writes:
Perhaps the universe has a built-in subliminal message: without a test for supernatural presence you don't know if this is imagination or detection, and you only assume a conclusion that fits your a priori conclusion.
Well, thank you! I would have liked the bracket mid=nnnnnn endbracket link so that I could read the context of this. And thank you for your next post replying to ZD in Message 245.
I must apologize for being snippy about this, but I am on a 56k dial-up and sometimes it takes me a few "reload page" attempts to get the whole page to load. I've tried the search stuff and it hangs very often. Eventually I have to give up and move on to other things. So it goes. My own fault I'm in this situation.....
Without a test for supernatural presence or involvement in ANYTHING we are left simply drawing conclusions on the basis of a priori assumptions for EVERYTHING aren't we? Science becomes one gigantic baseless assumption.
That is why we all should begin by assuming, a priori, that our body of substantiated objective scientific evidence is not going to be LYING to us. It won't hurt. It's just a little pin prick. I've never met any formal system that did not have at least 1 Postulate. Fascinating that you would seem to want such a system here.
Okay - now, hold my hand here and take me from your quote at the top to this quote below:
Straggler, replying to CS, posits:
Because there are some people who insist that certain scientific theories and conclusions cannot be drawn without first testing/falsifying their particular brand of evidentially baseless but untestable/unfalsifiable woo woo
I'm a bit foggy right now...but then you don't have to do my homework.
Straggler, Forgive me for being so blunt here but, are you asking RAZD if he's a 6 on the Dawkins scale when it comes to the "hogwarts hypothesis" because if he says yes,(without testing it) then we does he disagree with bluegenes since bluegenes doesnt have to test every known hypothesis to tentativly assume every known SN being is a product of the imagination?
Isn't that putting everything into the same boat? Can't we use our brains instead of dismissing all options? You are wanting to put lord v on a 6 scale, along with Jesus? Are you a 6 concerning Christ too? Is it so bad to be a 3 like RAZD that maybe just maybe some of these other more evidenced entities might exist over the JK Rowlings scenerio?
Why can't RAZD be a 6 concerning the "hogwart hpothesis" and still not contradict himslef?
Isn't RAZD trying to be fair here in not knowing what is true or false as far as reality goes? Whereas you are saying it has to be apples or oranges?
What's wrong with being agnostic? Isn't that a fair position to hold?
Why can't RAZD be a 6 concerning the "hogwart hpothesis" and still not contradict himslef?
Because RAZ has defined any de-facto atheist poition to anything untested as "logically invalid" and "pseudoskeptical". Have you actually read any of the posts you have been cheering along to?
Chuck writes:
What's wrong with being agnostic? Isn't that a fair position to hold?
Agnostic towards what?
It is perfectly sensible to be agnostic towards very many things. But it isn't sensible to be agnostic towards things for which there is no evidential basis whatsoever no matter how untestable they are defined to be.
When there is no evidential basis for something, when it is defined to be utterly unknowable (e.g. Last Thursdayism) how can the idea have originated from anywhere but imagination?
How likley is it that some figment of imagination is actually true?
Chuck writes:
Isn't RAZD trying to be fair here in not knowing what is true or false as far as reality goes? Whereas you are saying it has to be apples or oranges?
Chuck man listen to the things RAZ has declared himself to be agnostic about!!!!!! His is a brand of fundamentalist agnosticism gone frikkin mad!!!!!!
bluegenes writes:
If someone here on EvC tells you that they have special psychic powers, and that these powers have led them to know that there is an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom who will be there for a week and will try to kill you while you're asleep, would you move out of your bedroom for a week? You cannot know whether the proposition is true or not (you're agnostic on it if you admit this), but you'd probably treat it as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, and sleep in your room as normal.
RAZD writes:
Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in. Message 510
See Message 74 for some of the other things to which RAZ has stated his eternal agnosticism.
I think because RAZ's approach is more amenable to accepting your own particulat belief you have uncritically accepted/supported his arguments without really looking at them in detail.
You don't need to a priori assume anything about any evidentially baseless notion.
When I do my pen dropping thing are you really just basing your answer on an assumption that the universe wasn't created with subtly different physical laws a few seconds ago?
Or do you know that this evidentially unknowable proposition must have been plucked from the arse of human imagination and that it almost certainly isn't true?
Dead twice, because it is a fiction you made up and fictions are known to be off topic; and also dead because it would imply that a significant body of substantiated objective evidence is LYING to J.K.Rowling and the world at large. Out it goes.
Again with the assumptions. Perhaps you could provide the evidence that Lord Valdemort is fictional? (But please don't post any argumentum ad populums. People believing something is true is not evidence - despite what RAZD thinks.)
Straggler writes:
Last Thursdayism
xongsmith writes:
Dead because it would imply that significant body of substantiated objective evidence is LYING to us. Out it goes.
Incorrectly interpreting reality is not lying. If a detective sees a man holding a smoking gun and assumes he fired it: the data is not lying. The detective is simply wrong.
You are assigning an intelligence/intent which is not present in LastThursdayism. Back in it goes!
Straggler writes:
ethereal salamanders
xongsmith writes:
Did you make this one up? I can't digger that, but assuming the creator of this concept is not going to be forthcoming, does this proposition imply any previous evidence is LYING? E&M is one of most most exhaustively explained subjects of the various branches of science. If there is something about this that would imply E & M is lying, then out it goes. If not, then it is different from the previous ones. Shove off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means.
'Shove off on to another table'? So: your way to deal with it is to place it 'out of sight'?
And again, you are claiming an intent that doesn't exist. Evidence doesn't lie.
Straggler writes:
the Hindu Hypothesis
xongsmith writes:
Does this imply anywhere that any existing scientific evidence is LYING? Not that I know of. Shove off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means.
Again: you can't argue against the claim so you 'hide' the evidence.
Please try again, Xongsmith.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
Again with the assumptions. Perhaps you could provide the evidence that Lord Valdemort is fictional? (But please don't post any argumentum ad populums. People believing something is true is not evidence - despite what RAZD thinks.)
So, where do you place yourself concerning Lord V?
- I am a 6 on the scale. (probably a 7 tho being that he is a known documented fictional character)
- Straggler is a 6
- Xongsmith is a 6
- RAZD is a 6 (possibly a 7 being that he is a known documented fictional character)
quote:
(But please don't post any argumentum ad populums. People believing something is true is not evidence - despite what RAZD thinks.) So, where do you place yourself concerning Lord V?
- I am a 6 on the scale. (probably a 7 tho being that he is a known documented fictional character)
- Straggler is a 6
- Xongsmith is a 6
- RAZD is a 6 (possibly a 7 being that he is a known documented fictional character)
What are you? It seems you are maybe a 3?
Why do you think that RAZD/Zen Deist is a 6? Since it is a position taken in the absence of empirical evidence, according to his own arguments only positions in the range 3-5 are reasonable.
Further, according to RAZD anybody who takes a position of 1,2,6 or 7 in the absence of empirical evidence must take the same position on everything which is not supported or contradicted by physical evidence. Thus if he takes a position of 6 on Lord Voldemort he must also take a position of 6 with regard to the unfalsifiable supernatural entities he uses in his own examples. Which puts him firmly with those he calls "pseudoskeptics" - or worse since he refuses to accept the reasoning that they employ to support their views.
So, to be true to his own arguments he cannot take position 6 with regard to Lord Voldemort. In fact he must hold that it is reasonable to take position 3, even if he himself is a 5.
So, where do you place yourself concerning Lord V?
- I am a 6 on the scale.
In regard to the 'Hogwart's Hypothesis': I am a 6 on the scale too. But, like you, I am happy to disregard unevidenced ideas (e.g. Dumbledore 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).
Chuck77 writes:
RAZD is a 6
RAZD writes:
Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in.
So...have you not been reading the posts you have been cheering?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
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.
Well, RAZD and Straggler have a difference scale. RAZD isn't interested in the Dawkins scale so we'll use theirs.
RAZD is a O.(zero) on the RAZD/Straggler Concept Scale when it comes to Lord V possibly being a real SN being.
As for RAZD believing that Lord V is not a real SN being RAZD would be a IV b. on this scale being that it is widley accepted as fact that he is a made up fictional character.
™ Version 4.2
(1)