Omphalism

Hi, Straggler. What are you asking for? Evidence? Wouldn't that be the empirical way of doing things?Omphalism is not based on evidence. It's not supposed to be, and, as far as I am aware, nobody who practices it thinks it is.You want a different epistemology to work the way yours does, with methodologies and clear-cut, distinct bases on which to found arguments that can be evaluated by observation and experimentation. You want conclusions, you want processes and you want formulas. And, you are apparently under the impression that this is what non-empiricists do.But, omphalism and theism and spiritualism and animism and whatever else do not work the way empiricism does! That's what makes them different epistemologies!

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

You did not explain what you mean by "physical" and why you treat the omphalist's claim as a physical one. Well, so do I. But that does not change the fact that they have introduced a radical skepticism about empirical evidence.Edited by nwr, : No reason given.

I'm sure it could. But that's neither here nor there on my position on omphalism. For that, there's really not much I can add that I haven't already said in this thread. I guess. I don't think I'm going to be able to fake my sincerety very well though. In Message 35, I brought up the distinction between TAP and PAP agnosticism:

quote:

---

Take what Modulus brought up in the other thread:

​

quote:

---

Actually - Dawkins differentiates between 'the evidence could point in one of two directions' agnotsticism (Temporarily Agnostic in Practice (TAP) and Permanently Agnostic in Principle (PAP)). One generally would be PAP for unfalsifiable stuff but Dawkins uses this as a springboard to falsifying the premise of the design argument by arguing we shouldn't consider it PAP.

---

​

Forcing Last Thursdayism into being an evidenced conclusion would lead to TAP agnosticism while leaving it as a unfalsifiable philosophical possibility would keep it at PAP agnosticism.

---

In Message 50 I said what would answer your question above:

quote:

---

If somebody brought up Omphalism as a philisophical possibility then I would find that to be more dubious than somebody who said they observed some kind of evidence that led them to conclude Omphalism.

​

But since the philisophical possibility is not falsifiable then I'd be stuck at PAP agnosticism, however, the concluded Omphalism could be investigated so I'd have TAP agnosticism.

---

quote:

---

Last Thursdayism is not a claim from any kind of evidence, it is a philosophical possibility, I have PAP agnosticism. Biblical Omphalism as stemming from the Bible, is a claim that I have TAP agnosticism to until we actually look at the evidence and form a better conclusion. Biblical Omphalism, as a response to empirical evidence in a 'it could have been' position, doesn't actually make a claim, but is left as a philisophical possibility and too I would have PAP agnosticism, but I would be doubtful because they are just basing it on a priori conclusions.

---

In Message 39 I wrote:

quote:

---

If someone says: "It could have been...."
Then my PAP agnosticims goes: yeah, sure, whatever

​

If someone says: "It was...."

​

Then my TAP agnosticim goes: Oh really, lets look and see

---

and

quote:

---

If their response was: "No, it actually happened like...."

​

Then we can examine their evidence and figure out if/where they're wrong.

---

So, where's your evidence? How did you come to conclusion that the universe is 10,000 years old?You said you're a biblical omphalist, if you're going to respond to scientific evidence with an 'it could have been' position, then you can find my reponse above.

Asking for? I am pointing out that if an omphalist denies the validity of empirical evidence and conclusions regarding the age of the universe then they must have some alternative basis upon which they have drawn their rival conclusion regarding this matter. If they call it evidence. A "reason for belief" if they want to be more coy about it. Only if the "evidence" (or reason for belief) in question is empirical. If it isn't empirical then (by definition) it isn't "the empirical way of doing things". I don't care what basis for their belief they cite. I simply ask why they have any confidence in that method of knowing. Why is that such an outrageously unreasonable question? The only actual omphalists I am aware of are biblical omphalists. And they very definitely do claim that biblical literalism (specifically regarding chronology) is a superior form of knowing to empirical investigation in relation to determining the age of the Earth. See the links in Message 28 if you don't believe me. The very term "Omphalos" is derived from this exact epistemology.I posited Last Thursdayists who have drawn their Last Thursdayist conclusion on the basis of subjective evidence as a hypothetical alternative to this. Precisely because I am unaware of any other actual omphalists in existence. What other omphalists are you talking about? And are you seriously suggesting that they have made their omphalistic conclusion on the basis of no reason whatsoever? Isn't a conclusion made without any reason at all simply called "randomly guessing"? You can make me out to be the rabid goggle eyed empiricist if it makes you feel better. All I am actually requesting is that any proposed form of knowing be able to demonstrate that it is able to draw conclusions that are more reliable than guessing. And suggesting that if it cannot do this then it is simply faith and should rationally be treated as no differently to any other entirely faith based unevidenced position. No. I want people to explain why they are agnostic towards some things that are by definition evidentially unknowable and unfalsifiable whilst rejecting other things that are evidentially identical. If faith is the answer then fine. But don't tell me I should lower my skepticism and be agnostic towards some things just because others have faith in them. What are you talking about? Where are you getting this from? And why the sudden hostility? Well on that we agree. This thread is effectively about methods of knowing. Are all epistemologies equal? Or are some methods of knowing superior and deserving of more confidence than others? It is not at all clear whether or not you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be superior in terms of reliability and validity to the biblical omphalist conclusion. Can you clarify your position on this?You seem to be suggesting that all epistemologies are to be considered equally valid and reliable? But does not a demonstrable ability to make reliable and testable predictions elevate some forms of knowing ahead of others in terms of the confidence we can have in them and the conclusions derived from them?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you accept that time is a physical property? Then short of being a pedantic arse you will understand that there is a conflict of both conclusion and method of knowing when a Last Thursdayist claims that the universe has existed for less than a week whilst the empiricist claims that it has been in existence for billions of years. I am sorry Nwr but I see no point conversing with you further on this matter. I may be wrong. It may be that the succinct intelligence of your points is being lost on me. Others reading this can decide that for themselves. But I personally see no further point.

"Time" is a name we use for a physical property. It does not follow that every use of the word "time" is making a physical claim.

I came to on the basis of biblical chronology. I am not saying that I know this to be true. I am simply saying that this method of knowing is no less valid than your empirical methodology. If somebody proposes Last Thursdayism on the basis of no reason whatesoever how is this any different to guessing that omphalism is true and randomly picking a date that it occurred?Yet you claim agnosticism to this form of philosophical guessing whilst rejecting my form of omphalism which has an epistemology behind it that is no less valid than your empiricism. How can you justify this?(How am I doing on the pretending? )

Yes the physical property of time. What alternative form of "time" are you proposing that omphalists are using? So what exactly is a Last Thursdayist claiming with regard to time then? Be specific.

Empirical methodology put a man on the moon. What has biblical chronology done?Isn't it obvious that empirical methodology is more valid? Huh? How could a proposition being on the basis of no reason whatsoever ever be any different than a random guess? Because empiricism IS more valid. But it says nothing to the philisophical possibility of Last Thursdayism.

Has it? Not if Last Thursdayism is true. I thought you were agnostic towards Last Thursdayism? So you don't actually know what empiricism has achieved or not achieved do you? If you believe in empiricism it is very obvious. But it is equally obvious to me that God exists, that Jesus is my saviour and that the bible is the most reliable method of knowing anything. More reliable than mere temporal empirical theories. It can't. But bidn't you say you were agnostic towards the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism made on the basis of no reason or evidence whatsoever?Are you agnostic about all random guesses? Or do you usually consider such a method to be rather unlikley to result in reliable results? Well if Last Thursdayism is true empirical conclusions pertaining to any date prior to last Thursday are not valid. Are they? You are simply assuming that they are. Which is an invalid assumption if you are truly agnostic about Last thusdayismEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

He is claiming that empirical methods for determining time give wrong answers. The reasonable conclusion is that his concept of time is very different from that of the physical time that we ordinarily use.

Hi, Straggler. And, how does one demonstrate reliability?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Well then neither would your biblical chronology be true. As an unfalsifiable philisophical possibility, we are unable to know if it is true or not, but this casts the same agnosticism on your biblical chronology as well.All that aside, and considering what we do know, we're left with empirical methodology acheiving more than biblical chronology. How have you tested the reliability of the bible as a method? And what has a biblical methodology acheived? As an unfalsifyable philisophical possibility, in an 'it could have been' sense, yes. But as an actual claim I would doubt. Yes, but Last Thursdayism isn't a random guess, its philisophical proposition. But this is about biblical chronology making an actual claim on the age of the universe, not just a musing on the tentativity of an unfalsifyable possibility.

So the entire premise of your argument is that last Thursdayism has nothing whatsoever to do with last Thursday. Call me an pedantic old stick in the mud if you will but I would suggest that the clue is the name.But whatever.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It is not at all clear whether or not you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be superior in terms of reliability and validity to the biblical omphalist conclusion. Can you clarify your position on this? Well let me ask you - How do you think it is even possible for one to practically demonstrate the reliability of a method of knowing?And if one suggests a form of knowing that is unable to be demonstrated as reliable in any practical sense then how can one consider confidence in the conclusions of that form of knowing as anything but faith?And if faith is all you are advocating with regard to omphalism then on what basis is agnosticism rather than scepticism the rational conclusion to omphalism?