Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 256 of 304 (504341)
03-27-2009 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
03-27-2009 8:22 AM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
RAZD writes:
Logically, if invalidation is the only test of reality, then concepts that are not invalidated are possible reflections of reality.
This is the position that Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot argument refuted long ago. And you can't argue that you're not seeking objective knowledge when you make understanding aspects of reality your goal.
Like those utterly convinced that perpetual motion machines are possible, you're just as utterly convinced that objective knowledge can be gained via subjective approaches, and just as immune to persuasion.
We understand the way it feels to you. What we don't understand is why for you a little introspection doesn't tell you that it's just the way you're wired and that it isn't any reflection of the real world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2009 8:22 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2009 10:32 PM Percy has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 257 of 304 (504343)
03-27-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
03-27-2009 8:22 AM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
RAZD,
Logically, if invalidation is the only test of reality, then concepts that are not invalidated are possible reflections of reality.
Like the IPU, you mean?
And invalidation isn't the only test of reality, there is confirmation.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2009 8:22 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 258 of 304 (504498)
03-29-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Percy
03-27-2009 10:24 AM


Objective knowledge is the only part of reality?
And you can't argue that you're not seeking objective knowledge when you make understanding aspects of reality your goal.
Assuming that reality is only what is objectively knowable, that reality is constrained to be what is objectively knowable. This would be like only looking under the streetlight for lost car keys because that is where you can see.
... you're just as utterly convinced that objective knowledge can be gained via subjective approaches, ...
No, please. Consider the diagram again, and step outside the magenta circle of scientific knowledge:
You have left objective evidence behind, and with it objective knowledge, yet we still have many more concepts, ones based on consistent logic rather than evidence. Step outside the blue circle, and you have left logic behind. Some may feel this is like stepping off a cliff, or climbing a staircase made of sponge, but this is still part of knowledge, still based on concepts of reality, just some aspects of reality that may not be objectively knowable.
The grey background would be reality. Concepts within the blue circle and within the green circle can still be true to that reality without being found in objective knowledge.
This is the position that Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot argument refuted long ago.
And yet, like the IPU we have a concept that is an intellectual construct with no subjective evidence for it's existence. If we are trying to determine the validity of concepts that have subjective evidence for them, working our way out from the magenta circle to the next stage of knowledge, we would exclude both the celestial teapot and the IPU as not being concepts that involve subjective evidence.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 03-27-2009 10:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 03-30-2009 9:22 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 260 by mark24, posted 03-31-2009 11:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 261 by Dr Jack, posted 03-31-2009 11:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 259 of 304 (504525)
03-30-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by RAZD
03-29-2009 10:32 PM


Re: Objective knowledge is the only part of reality?
I think confusion is arising because you're using a different definition of reality, and at times you may even be equivocating between two different definitions. In this discussion we need a word which means "that which is true and the same for everyone," and I've been using the word reality to mean this.
But you're claiming there are aspects of reality that are subjective, which means they aren't true or the same for everyone. That's a different definition of reality, and not the correct one in my opinion, but what particular word we use to mean "that which is true and the same for everyone" is not important, as long as we're not torturing the English language. If you want to come up with another term I'm open to suggestions, we just need clear terminology to distinguish between what I mean when I say "reality" versus what you mean when you say "reality".
What you learn from your subjective studies may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone, and therefore it isn't true of, let me call it, objective reality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2009 10:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2009 5:28 PM Percy has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 260 of 304 (504593)
03-31-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by RAZD
03-29-2009 10:32 PM


Re: Objective knowledge is the only part of reality?
RAZD,
And yet, like the IPU we have a concept that is an intellectual construct with no subjective evidence for it's existence.
We don't have any for a deistic god, either.
For the third (possibly fourth) time, what is this evidence that is so good it allows you to conclude that a creator exists?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2009 10:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 261 of 304 (504597)
03-31-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by RAZD
03-29-2009 10:32 PM


Faith is not a way of knowing
I think that is one of the stupidest and most misleading "diagrams" I have ever seen. It should have the big grey bubble of all knowledge. Then there should be a decently size circle for science and a much smaller intersecting circle for philosophy inside it. Faith should be another circle which barely touches the circle for reality.
Faith isn't another waying of knowing, if anything known by faith turns out to be true it's only by blind luck.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Better subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2009 10:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Rahvin, posted 03-31-2009 1:07 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 262 of 304 (504605)
03-31-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Dr Jack
03-31-2009 11:51 AM


Re: Faith is not a way of knowing
Not to mention that science is not in any way a subset of "faith." We've been over that before - science is based entirely on repeatable objective evidence, while "faith" is defined as "belief that is not based on evidence." It's impossible for an evidence-based methodology to be a subset of a methodology defined by its lack of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Dr Jack, posted 03-31-2009 11:51 AM Dr Jack has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 263 of 304 (504909)
04-04-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Percy
03-30-2009 9:22 AM


Re: Objective knowledge is the only part of reality?
I think confusion is arising because you're using a different definition of reality, and at times you may even be equivocating between two different definitions. In this discussion we need a word which means "that which is true and the same for everyone," and I've been using the word reality to mean this.
I've been using reality to mean that which is true regardless of what you believe or think you know about reality.
But you're claiming there are aspects of reality that are subjective,...
No. I'm saying that there is probably aspects of reality that can never be known by scientific evaluation. Some of these aspects may be suggested by subjective evidence as possibly valid.
What you learn from your subjective studies may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone, and therefore it isn't true of, let me call it, objective reality.
And Mark keeps asking what I've concluded. All I've learned is that there are possibilities that cannot be ruled out by objective evidence, such as the visitations by aliens, and that there are common elements of many subjective experiences. If subjective evidence suggests possibilities, it does not make conclusions, just concepts that are more tentative than even those of science.
Mr Jack objects to the diagram because his world view rejects faith, and Rahvin says science is not in any way a subset of "faith." It seems like I'm talking to a wall in this regard. I started the Perceptions of Reality thread with the comment that
quote:
Some here have contended that there are two opposing camps, each with set presuppositions that exclude elements of the other camp, making a picture something like this:
The area of overlap is the area of agreement, and the areas outside the overlap are the areas of contention.
And I rejected this as a false picture compared to the one objected to here:
quote:
The real question is how does one's personal view relate to {reality}, and how can we determine that (IF we can determine that)?
Let me open up the discussion a bit by first proposing the whole playing field of human knowledge and perceptions of reality, in very general terms, using these definitions from Dictionary.com:
science (click) ...
philosophy (click) ...
faith (click) ...
If I were to draw a picture of this it would be something like this:
One could say that {all} science includes knowledge we that we are pretty sure we know, that {all} philosophy includes knowledge that we think we can know, and that {all} faith includes knowledge we cannot know that we know (hence we take it on faith).
There is nothing within science that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} philosophy or other, and there is nothing within philosophy that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} faith or other.
Perhaps a more palatable picture would be
Where we have tested concepts for explaining reality, concepts that are logically possible explanations of reality, and concepts that are proposed as explanations of reality.
Some people seem to react to "trigger words" (for creationists "evolution" is a trigger word, here it seems that "faith" is a trigger word) that trigger automatic negative reactions.
We can go back to the original basic assumptions of science:
  1. that there is an objective reality
  2. that evidence of this objective reality exists
  3. that concepts explaining reality can be tested by this evidence
  4. that the evidence is objective if such testing can be repeated with the same results by anyone
  5. concepts that are contradicted by such testing with evidence are invalidated as explanations of reality
  6. that no concept can be proven to be true
Faith: 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Belief: 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
These assumptions cannot be proven by logic (there are no self-evident truths), nor do they rest on material evidence (the existence of material evidence is assumed).
We can talk about scientific theory being tentative, but the whole structure of science has a high degree of confidence in the validity of the process. There are, however, no proven truths. In other words, no matter how you cut the mustard, we have faith that what we consider reality is really (part of) reality.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : possibly
Edited by RAZD, : no

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 03-30-2009 9:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Percy, posted 04-04-2009 9:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 264 of 304 (504913)
04-04-2009 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by RAZD
04-04-2009 5:28 PM


Re: Objective knowledge is the only part of reality?
RAZD writes:
I've been using reality to mean that which is true regardless of what you believe or think you know about reality.
This isn't a useful definition for this discussion because it contains no criteria for establishing which ideas are true about reality. If we're not talking about objective reality, that which is true for everyone, then we're not talking about the same thing.
No. I'm saying that there is probably aspects of reality that can never be known by scientific evaluation. Some of these aspects may be suggested by subjective evidence as possibly valid.
You cannot turn something false into something true by careful phrasing. Increasing our understanding of objective reality cannot be achieved via subjective methods because by their very nature their conclusions are not true for everyone.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2009 5:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 265 of 304 (504920)
04-05-2009 2:54 AM


Closing remarks
I think I successfully called this one. Early in the thread I said
quote:
Without further argumentation on behalf of the believer, the IPU and god are no different as far as believability. If you can explain why a subset of A exists whose members should be more believable, then you have made some progress in tackling the actual argument. I fear however, that you think the actual argument is off topic - in which case this thread is just a pointless echo chamber.
And I stressed on a number of subsequent occasions that this was the central point behind the IPU. I argued that one avenue of possible discussion could be "scientific realism versus constructivism", which seems to be stirring in the depths as this thread begins to wind down.
In Message 88 also argued that
quote:
some people believe there are some criteria (the prevalence of belief in creator deities, the argument from design etc etc), having such criteria would suggest not faith, but reason was employed (or perhaps both)...and thus the IPU argument is no longer being used as an argument against faith, and thus it is no longer on topic for this thread.
as an attempt to find agreement with RAZD - though I was not entirely married to this idea I was looking for a compromise position.
Unfortunately, RAZD has been a bit backwards and forwards on what he is arguing so it has been difficult to know what kind of argument there might be. On the one hand he says that faith is "based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational.", and on the other hand he is trying to develop a rational and evidence based argument for his faith. If anything, the controversy of the Invisible Pink Unicorn has allowed us to explore this position in more detail.
However, I pointed out that the IPU was designed to show special pleading, and I think it is agreed that that special pleading must be involved in certain beliefs unless something extra is appealed to. So, finally, we are talking about the thing that RAZD thinks seperates the IPU, the Garage Dragon from the Leszi and Djinn: it seems to be RAZD's view that nobody has had any subjective experiences of the IPU or Garage Dragon (though I'm sure that this isn't entirely true, myself) whereas the latter (and other entities such as deities), have. The IPU therefore has allowed us to identify RAZD's argument in favour of the existence of a deity so that this argument can be critically examined.
And so the IPU argument has emerged victorious from this thread, to be used again when we need to get past 'faith' as an answer to a question from somebody. Excuse me while I go pat myself on the back.

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2009 2:44 PM Modulous has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 266 of 304 (504937)
04-05-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Modulous
04-05-2009 2:54 AM


Re: Closing remarks
Thanks Mod, but there are still some misconceptions here.
On the one hand he says that faith is "based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational.", and on the other hand he is trying to develop a rational and evidence based argument for his faith.
There is no on the "other hand" involved. This thread was created for the sole purpose of discussing levels of evidence while explicitly excluding any discussion of god/s. The beginning and the end of discussion of faith, as far as I am concerned, is totally and completely summed up in the words quoted above, taken from the Percy is a Deist thread: "based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational."
What absolutely shocks me is the complete inability of people to deal with this thread without discussing god/s.
However, I pointed out that the IPU was designed to show special pleading, and I think it is agreed that that special pleading must be involved in certain beliefs unless something extra is appealed to. So, finally, we are talking about the thing that RAZD thinks seperates the IPU, the Garage Dragon from the Leszi and Djinn: it seems to be RAZD's view that nobody has had any subjective experiences of the IPU or Garage Dragon (though I'm sure that this isn't entirely true, myself) whereas the latter (and other entities such as deities), have. The IPU therefore has allowed us to identify RAZD's argument in favour of the existence of a deity so that this argument can be critically examined.
On a pure and simple basis, any subjective evidence is a causal basis for a person believing what they experienced. Therefore any belief based on a subjective experience is not subject to special pleading.
This was explored with the example of alien life on other planets and alien visitation to this planet, a subject with many reports of subjective experiences. It was agreed that we could logically derive the possibility of life on other planets even though there is absolutely zero evidence of this being the case. It was also agreed that this same logical process could be used to derive the possibility of alien visitations.
The idea that the subjective experiences of many people of alien visitations could not be considered evidence of the possibility of alien visitations was completely rejected by some people, even though they conceded the logical possibility, and in spite of the fact that such observations would be a logical result of actual alien visitations.
I find this bizarre.
We also have the example of many subjective experiences that cannot be verified by objective evidence, and yet there is little problem with accepting the validity of the experience/s. One example mentioned on this is love, and another is the observation of a "shooting star" - both agreed as subjective experiences, and both accepted as being valid occurrences.
What is clear to me, is that such subjective experiences are adequate evidence of a possibility of the experience being valid, but that is all that can be concluded from them. This is obviously mundanely true when you consider that your subjective experience can be confirmed as valid by later objective evidence: the photo in the paper of the shooting star showing the same location and taken at the same time as your observation.
Percy talks about objective reality and objective evidence, but he starts with this basis:
percy writes:
Message 246: It is only as a shared interpretation develops that objectivity emerges.
Objectivity also requires reliably establishing that all are interpreting the same phenomenon, something not possible with internal spiritual experience.
Thus we have multiple people observing a shooting star becoming evidence of objective reality, and the question becomes at what degree of repetition does this cross over from being a purely subjective singular experience to be a confirmed objective experience, or is there some other factor involved - subjective a priori assumptions about the validity of the evidence. Certainly, when we talk about the subjective experience of alien visitations there are instances of multiple observation and shared interpretations, yet we see these instance rejected by people that happily accept a similar degree of evidence for shooting stars. The difference in acceptance seems to rest more on the persons a priori acceptance of the possibility of the experience being valid (their world view), than on the existence of the evidence. Most people have observed shooting stars and most have all been told the same common explanation, and thus the probability of someone else seeing a shooting star is readily accepted.
We also have multitudes of reports of people having the internal subjective experience of being in love, and while the specific experience itself cannot be shared, the experience is common enough that people accept this as a valid example of reality. That people fall in love is an accepted aspect of objective reality, as we have a shared interpretation of the experience, and sufficient description of the experience that we agree that we are all interpreting the same phenomenon.
On a pure and simple basis, any subjective evidence is a causal basis for a person believing what they experienced. It is also obviously observably true that people making claims of being in love or of observing alien visitations believe this to be true, and that their acceptance of the possibility is based on their experience.
percy writes:
Message 264: You cannot turn something false into something true by careful phrasing. Increasing our understanding of objective reality cannot be achieved via subjective methods because by their very nature their conclusions are not true for everyone.
Percy (and others) confuse/d this with trying to 'prove' objective reality with subjective evidence, or that I am claiming there is a subjective reality. The problem is that objective and subjective are NOT a dichotomy, as you can have subjective experience of objective evidence, as in the shooting star example.
What we have is a question about the perceptions of reality, as discussed on the Perceptions of Reality thread, and as introduced again here.
What is clear to me, is that such subjective experiences are adequate evidence of a possibility of the experience being valid, but that is all that can be concluded from them. It is also clear to me that this in no way implies that our understanding of objective reality is not increased by this possibility. It is also clear to me that this is not implying that there are subjective realities.
Reality is what is. What we know about it is limited by our (tentative scientific) objective knowledge, as the signature says ("we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand") but this does not mean that reality is limited to just that knowledge. And so I repeat: I'm saying that there is probably aspects of reality that can never be known by scientific evaluation. Some of these aspects may be suggested by subjective evidence as possibly valid. It is also clear to me that this in no way implies that our understanding of objective reality is not increased by this possibility. It is also clear to me that this is not implying that there are subjective realities.
There is (tentative scientific) objective reality, and then there is the rest of it. The question is what the rest of reality includes.
And so the IPU argument has emerged victorious from this thread, to be used again when we need to get past 'faith' as an answer to a question from somebody. Excuse me while I go pat myself on the back.
You will excuse me if I chuckle whenever you do, as it is only "victorious" for those who came with the a priori assumption that it was "victorious" as no evidence of people believing in IPU's as a result of subjective experience has been presented. The claims that such exist are as empty as many a creationist claim of having evidence to support a position that remains unsupported by evidence.
Message 1:
quote:
The argument usually goes something like this:
  1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
  2. There is no evidence for immaterial pink unicorns.
    therefore, you should believe in immaterial unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.

Does the subjective evidence for alien visitation sightings make a difference between believing in the validity of the experience versus believing in the existence of immaterial pink unicorns?
  • shooting star personal experience &rArr personal belief in the possibility of shooting stars
  • alien visitation personal experience &rArr personal belief in the possibility of alien visitations
  • immaterial pink unicorn lack of personal experience &rArr lack of any documented personal belief in the possibility of immaterial pink unicorns
The IPU is not the same as the others, so no special pleading to believe in shooting stars or alien visitations.
What we have seen is the discussion revolves more about what is "acceptable" evidence than whether there is a possibility of the experience being suggestive of the possibility of the experience being valid, and that the acceptability of evidence is based on subjective world views of different people.
  • people with personal experience of shooting stars believe in the possibility of shooting stars
  • people with personal experience of alien visitations believe in the possibility of alien visitations
    Therefore, on a pure and simple logical basis, any subjective evidence is a causal basis for a person believing what they experienced. It is also obviously observably true that people making claims of observing shooting stars or alien visitations believe this to be true, and that their acceptance of the possibility is based on their experience.
    What is clear to me, is that such subjective experiences are adequate evidence of a possibility of the experience being valid, but that is all that can be concluded from them. It is also clear to me that this in no way implies that our understanding of objective reality is not increased by this possibility. It is also clear to me that this is not implying that there are subjective realities.
    The IPU (Russel's Teapot, Garage Dragon, etc) lacks this support for possible existence, so they are not logically comparable arguments.
    The logical problem still remains of comparing beliefs from Message 7
    quote:
    But the real comparison is that
    C is an example of A
    D is an example of A
    Therefore C = D
    And you cannot logically say that C = D or C ≠ D because you don't know.
    We have seen that C (IPU) and D (alien visitations) are both members of A (the class of objects with no convincing objective objective evidence) and we have seen that they are differentiated by the existence of subjective evidence for D that is lacking for C, so A is divided into to two subareas: A1 (no evidence of any kind) and A2 (subjective experience evidence only).
    Rather obviously (to me anyway) the solitary subjective experience of a shooting star does not mean that I need to believe in alien visitations, rather it is the documented existence of subjective experiences for alien visitations that lead me to conclude that such are possibly valid experiences.
    No such basis exists to incline me to believe in the possible validity of the IPU.
    C is an example of A1
    D is an example of A2
    A1 ≠ A2
    Therefore C ≠ D for any C that is an example of A1 and any D that is an example of A2
    It does not matter what C or D are.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : exist
    Edited by RAZD, : love is
    Edited by RAZD, : ,

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 265 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2009 2:54 AM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 267 by Percy, posted 04-05-2009 3:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 268 by bluegenes, posted 04-05-2009 7:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 269 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2009 4:45 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 271 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 1:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 272 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2009 7:05 AM RAZD has replied

    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22392
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.3


    Message 267 of 304 (504938)
    04-05-2009 3:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
    04-05-2009 2:44 PM


    Re: Closing remarks
    Once again, the IPU is a hypothetical, like the celestial teapot. It's not supposed to have actual people who believe it exists. It's a stand-in for things like alien visitations and gods and perpetual motion machines that has the advantage that you won't get drawn down rat holes by people who actually believe they're real. As Modulous put it at one point, they're ideal examples of unfalsifiable entities.
    So yes, of course you can argue that there are no actual shared experiences of the IPU. THAT'S WHY IT WAS CONCOCTED!!! To illustrate the error of concluding from shared beliefs that there is actually some possible reality for things for which there is no objective evidence.
    The length of some of your posts makes clear that you're putting a great deal of time into this (or are an incredibly fast thinker and typist), but remaking your entire argument from scratch while rebutting every key point you can think of every ten or twenty posts actually works against you. It's like you're trying to fend off counter-arguments with blizzards of words.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2009 2:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    bluegenes
    Member (Idle past 2477 days)
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007


    Message 268 of 304 (504942)
    04-05-2009 7:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
    04-05-2009 2:44 PM


    Re: Closing remarks
    RAZD writes:
    What absolutely shocks me is the complete inability of people to deal with this thread without discussing god/s.
    Hardly surprising (or shocking) as the IPU is a goddess, and only manifests herself when other deities are being satirized.
    The problem with your O.P. is that you think that she's used for the argument that you characterize here:
    quote:
    1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
    2. There is no evidence for immaterial pink unicorns.
    therefore, you should believe in immaterial unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.
    Rather, she's used as an analogy for any specific described god, ideally one with apparent contradictions. So, when someone claims to know something about a god that he/she describes as unknowable, that's the ideal type of usage. That's why it's "invisible pink" not "immaterial pink" as you've reinvented it ("immaterial solid" would have been better).
    But she's not an "argument by analogy". Analogies are for illustration, not precise logical argument.
    So, if someone suggests to a theist that knowing his unknowable god exists is like believing in an IPU, "like" means "similar to", and the comparison is meant to illustrate the paradoxical nature of the person's belief, as well as the fact that it's evidenceless. She also illustrates the arbitrariness of anyone's imaginary supernatural friends.
    I think I said something like that in one of the first few posts of the thread.
    When atheists want to point to an equivalent to gods, and want something that some people actually are known believe in, the most likely is something else general and supernatural, like fairies, for whom, according to you, there's "subjective evidence".

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2009 2:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 269 of 304 (505023)
    04-06-2009 4:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
    04-05-2009 2:44 PM


    Re: Closing remarks
    There is no on the "other hand" involved. This thread was created for the sole purpose of discussing levels of evidence while explicitly excluding any discussion of god/s. The beginning and the end of discussion of faith, as far as I am concerned, is totally and completely summed up in the words quoted above, taken from the Percy is a Deist thread: "based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational."
    So you haven't put any energy towards arguing that subjective experiences are a type of evidence that provide a valid reason for having faith in certain propositions?
    What absolutely shocks me is the complete inability of people to deal with this thread without discussing god/s.
    Sometimes the elephant in the room needs pointing out from time to time. I have tried to discuss many non-god related entities such as Leszi and Djinn that a fair number of people have faith in (as well as Garage Dragons et al that people less often genuinely have faith in), so I hope you weren't directing that comment at me
    On a pure and simple basis, any subjective evidence is a causal basis for a person believing what they experienced. Therefore any belief based on a subjective experience is not subject to special pleading.
    Yes, that is trivially true. If your only point is that there is some deterministic element behind belief and that is principally based around experience, you'd probably not find any dissent amongst the atheists. That doesn't seem to be what you are saying though.
    The idea that the subjective experiences of many people of alien visitations could not be considered evidence of the possibility of alien visitations was completely rejected by some people, even though they conceded the logical possibility, and in spite of the fact that such observations would be a logical result of actual alien visitations.
    So, trying to tie this into the topic somehow - are you are arguing that subjective experiences count as evidence when it comes to faith based positions or not? If not, I don't see the relevance of you bringing it up.
    If you are, then that seems to run counter to what you wrote a few paragraphs earlier about faith and evidence and reason.
    I said earlier that if you think there is some reason that differentiates the IPU from the faith based entities we see people believing in then you could escape the special pleading problem and we can then get into a dispute over whether your reasons for accepting any given entity are reliable enough to merit accepting it etc.
    You will excuse me if I chuckle whenever you do, as it is only "victorious" for those who came with the a priori assumption that it was "victorious" as no evidence of people believing in IPU's as a result of subjective experience has been presented.
    None is needed, that is why. I notice, incidentally, that you continue to reject the evidence that has been presented that people believe in the IPU based on subjective experiences.
    Why is none needed? Because the IPU is raised when somebody argues that there is no evidence or rationale for believing in the entity that they do, that it is just accepted on pure faith. This is special pleading and it can be shown by raising the IPU. Shortly after raising the IPU or similar entities, we find that pure faith gets kicked out of bed and all sorts of reasons and claims of evidence are forthcoming.
    We have seen that C (IPU) and D (alien visitations) are both members of A (the class of objects with no convincing objective objective evidence) and we have seen that they are differentiated by the existence of subjective evidence for D that is lacking for C, so A is divided into to two subareas: A1 (no evidence of any kind) and A2 (subjective experience evidence only).
    To briefly repeat: if you want to argue that you avoid special pleading with an appeal to evidence, no matter how dodgy that evidence, you are welcome to try that route out. It means that we've left the IPU behind though since her purpose is to point out that in order to justify belief in something you need a little more than invoking 'faith' if you want to avoid the charge of special pleading. You've jumped out of the frying pan of special pleading and into the fire of justifying confident beliefs on potentially shaky grounds.
    I've had subjective experiences of Leszi, such that for a (relatively short) period of time, I believed that they existed. I have friends who have likewise had experiences that mean they believe in Djinn. Out of curiousity, if we replaced the IPU with Leszi or Djinn (so that we can sidestep your issues with subjective experience) how would you respond to the argument then?
    I'm not sure what the misconceptions are that you alluded to, what are they?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2009 2:44 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 273 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2009 8:18 AM Modulous has replied

    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 4032
    Joined: 07-01-2005
    Member Rating: 9.2


    Message 270 of 304 (505033)
    04-06-2009 7:32 PM


    Why the "Immaterial Pink Unicorn" is a valid argument
    We've thoroughly explored in this thread the nature of the IPU argument, as well as the natures of faith, evidence, subjectivity and objectivity. The end seems to mimic the beginning: RAZD continues to argue that his belief in an un-evidenced entity is somehow different from other un-evidenced entities, despite being utterly unable to provide any reason that it is different, and instead has treated us with a variety of woefully inaccurate Venn diagrams where he attempts to support the notion that, so long as an idea isn't contradicted by evidence, it's perfectly rational to have confidence in that idea's accuracy.
    RAZD is wrong.
    Subjectivity
    RAZD has pointed out, correctly, that subjective experiences are an actual cause for belief. What RAZD has pointedly ignored, however, is that beliefs based on subjective experiences have absolutely no relationship to objective reality. Subjective evidence can only lead to subjective conclusions - any beliefs spawned from subjective experience are only "true" for the individual who had the experience.
    Threshold of Evidence
    Technically speaking, if I see a cat run across the street and nobody else sees it, I have had a subjective experience. I cannot verify that the cat exists, and there is no reason for anyone to believe or disbelieve me. Nobody suggests that we should disbelieve any and all claims made by an individual. RAZD would have us believe that this means that an individual's "feeling" (or other subjective experience) about the existence of a deity should be given the same benefit of the doubt.
    Unfortunately for RAZD, the old mantra "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is still true just as much for his claims of the existence of a deity, just as much as they exist for the cat I may or may not have seen.
    Seeing a cat run across the street is not an uncommon occurrence. I would wager that everyone reading this message has at least seen a cat before, if perhaps not a cat running across a street. If someone claims to have seen a cat, this is relatively mundane, and is supported by the evidence we have all seen that cats do exist, and so his claim has a high probability of being true ("true" in this sense meaning "the cat actually existed in objective reality, and did in fact run across the street").
    Claiming that a deity exists, however, is a rather extraordinary claim, and so more evidence than RAZD's simple say-so is required to support his assertion. Nobody has ever seen a deity. RAZD may point out that many people have had subjective experiences related to deities of some sort, but this is invalidated by the fact that those subjective experiences are not actually similar at all in many cases. One cannot seriously conclude that a subjective experience involving Zeus is somehow related to a subjective experience involving Jesus, or that the fact that people have had both experiences somehow means that "something" must be "out there" supernaturally causing such experiences. This would be like claiming that, because many people have subjective experiences regarding alien abduction, aliens must have actually abducted people despite the wildly different stories told and the lack of any other evidence.
    Human beings have common subjective experiences all the time. How many people have had dreams involving flying, or breathing underwater? Falling off of a cliff? Disastrous events? Storms? Talking snakes? How many people have had a "feeling" that their chosen lottery number is the winner? How many people have "seen" demons, or ghosts, or goblins? The commonality of subjective experiences is not due to the objective truth that people can fly or breathe underwater or predict disasters, but is rather due to the commonality of the human condition. We all have wishful thoughts that give rise to false confidence. We all recognize patterns that don't exist, and "see" things that aren't there at all.
    To claim that one extraordinary subjective experience is valid due to commonality while dismissing all other extraordinary subjective experiences based on no evidence or reasoning whatsoever requires special pleading.
    In this way, RAZD's defense that the commonality of "divine" experiences suggests the actual objective existence are simply another example of the way he uses special pleading to justify his own beliefs.
    Reasonable vs. Unreasonable, Rational vs. Irrational
    RAZD has said that having confidence in an un-evidenced claim that is not contradicted by evidence is non-reasonable but not unreasonable, and is rational.
    RAZD is wrong.
    Having confidence in any un-evidenced claim is irrational. The rational response is tentative skepticism - that is, have no confidence until a reason for confidence is supplied.
    But what about a claim backed by subjective experience? If you have a vision of Jesus, or a "feeling" that "something is out there," is that not a cause for having confidence that Jesus/"Something" actually exists?
    Again, subjective experiences can only support subjective conclusions. An extraordinary claim based on subjective evidence does not reach the minimum threshold for rationally having confidence that your subjective experience has anything to do with objective reality. Rationally, acknowledging that human beings have "feelings" and "visions" and other subjective experiences all the time that are demonstrably not true, the reasonable conclusion is that your extraordinary subjective experience is of a similar nature.
    On what basis does RAZD claim that having confidence in an un-evidenced claim is rational? He engages special pleading. This is where the Immaterial Pink Unicorn comes into play.
    The Immaterial Pink Unicorn is an entity for which no objective evidence exists. It's a concept. Nothing more. Likewise, RAZD's deity (which is apparently undefinable) is also supported by no objective evidence. It, too, is a concept. Even assuming that RAZD has had some sort of subjective experience to cause his belief in his deity, his confidence that his subjective experience (and only that one, at that - I'm sure he has had many subjective experiences that he's dismissed) is related to objective reality while insisting that other subjective experiences and the conclusions drawn from them are not reasonable exemplifies special pleading.
    Venn Diagrams!
    RAZD has demonstrated his artistic aptitude by gracing this thread with a variety of wonderfully colored Venn diagrams. His favorite shows that science is a subset of philosophy, which itself is a subset of faith.
    His diagrams are inaccurate, and misleading in the extreme.
    Science is in no way a subset of faith - science requires evidence, while faith is defined by an absence of evidence.
    I would love to draw an accurate diagram, but alas, I'm at work. Also, I'm too lazy and playing with MS Paint isn't my idea of fun.
    Instead, let's discuss RAZD's latest commentary on his shiny new Venn Diagram, where "D" and "C" are subsets of "A":
    We have seen that C (IPU) and D (alien visitations) are both members of A (the class of objects with no convincing objective objective evidence) and we have seen that they are differentiated by the existence of subjective evidence for D that is lacking for C, so A is divided into to two subareas: A1 (no evidence of any kind) and A2 (subjective experience evidence only).
    This is all well and good, barring anyone who actually has had a subjective experience regarding the IPU. Of course, all one needs to do to verify that the IPU is supported by subjective evidence is to claim to have had a subjective experience regarding the IPU, and suddenly "C" and "D" become identical. That's simply the weakness of subjective claims. But moving on...
    Rather obviously (to me anyway) the solitary subjective experience of a shooting star does not mean that I need to believe in alien visitations, rather it is the documented existence of subjective experiences for alien visitations that lead me to conclude that such are possibly valid experiences.
    Herein lies the flaw in RAZD's reasoning. As I have exmplained, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Shooting stars, like cats crossing streets, are not extraordinary. We know that they exist - we can reproduce them (or at least predict their reappearance), and can show objective evidence surrounding their events (paw marks in the mud along the road, or meteorites that have actually struck, actual recordings of shooting stars, etc).
    Alien visitations, the IPU, and RAZD's "deity" concept have none of this. They are extraordinary claims, and as such RAZD should recognize that he and everyone else should regard them with skepticism pending extraordinary evidence to support them.
    Having confidence in an un-evidenced claim that is not contradicted by other evidence is fine, when the claim is mundane. The everyday, common nature of the claim is itself evidence - it's rational to believe that a falling star was actually observed because other falling stars have been observed, and many even recovered and examined physically.
    Having confidence in an un-evidenced claim that is not contradicted by other evidence is not rational when the un-evidence claim is extraordinary in nature.
    No such basis exists to incline me to believe in the possible validity of the IPU.
    Nobody is requiring you to. However, the fact that you have confidence in one unsupported claim that is not contradicted by evidence and do not have confidence in all other unsupported claims that are not contradicted by evidence means that you have arbitrarily chosen one claim as valid from a host of similar claims that regard as invalid. You are engaged in special pleading.
    The Immaterial Pink Unicorn
    As I described early on in this thread, the IPU argument is meant to demonstrate special pleading. It is constructed to present an entity for which there is no evidence one way or the other, and trigger an emotional response with its seeming ridiculousness.
    RAZD has fallen for the trap.
    The IPU is no more ridiculous than a man who rises from the dead, or an invisible man in the sky. It's no more ridiculous than any of the Greek myths, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or astral projection.
    The IPU is supported by exactly as much evidence as RAZD's undefined deity - none.
    The IPU is specifically constructed to be unfalsifiable - just as RAZD's deity is purposefully left undefined, the most vague concept possible in order to prevent potential falsification.
    RAZD has confidence in the existence of one unsupported unfalsifiable concept, but not another. He has irrationally allowed his own personal subjective experiences to convince him of an extraordinary claim, without the extraordinary evidence required to make such confidence rational and reasonable, and yet he denies the rationality of doing exactly the same in support of the IPU.
    RAZD is engaged in nothing more or less than special pleading.
    The very fact that he created this thread out of emotional outrage over the ridiculousness of the IPU argument, followed by his utterly ineffectual attempts to invalidate the comparison of the IPU to other unsupported and un-contradicted concepts, proves that the IPU argument is both valid and effective.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 275 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2009 9:26 AM Rahvin has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024