Jeez Strags, you are so determined to make volcanic mountains out of antsyhills.
FFS RAZ you are utterly impossible. We still don't have an explicit answer to the question asked. Forget ANY Goddam scales for one cotton pickin minute.
Curiously, you already have (and you have already replied previously to)
Message 296:
Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?
No, it doesn't preclude you from taking whatever "unevidenced," subjective opinion belief position you want to take. There are no real barriers to what you can have for an opinion or a belief. Pick a position according to your personal beliefs and live your life accordingly -- heck we all do that anyway, big whap.
NO, IT DOESN"T PRECLUDE (you from taking a "6" position)
THERE ARE NO BARRIERS (to taking a "6" position)
Is that
clear enough for you? Or do I need large blinking letters?
Color in the original for emphasis, bold added for further emphasis: you wanted a yes or a no, and I do not see
any way this can be
ignored as a NO ... except possibly due to cognitive dissonance?
To use Panda's misrepresentation analogy correctly:
Straggler: Is there any reason not to like this cheese?
RAZD: No, there is no reason not to like that cheese, what cheese you like is a subjective decision, there are no barriers to you (or anyone) choosing what kind of cheese you like. You like Cheddar and I like Stilton. Big whap.
Now, please note, I have added to my reply by edit earlier this morning (the original reply being made during a bout of insomnia, not a best time to post, but not much else to do) to be even more clear, so there are some changes but NOT to the yellow statement above NOR to the overall intent of the reply. This was done before I saw your or anyone else's replies (and thus was not influenced by them).
RAZD writes:
Of course, if it is untestable then de facto there is no support for the concept and the true skeptic can only say that it is unsupported, that it is neither proven nor disproven, and that logic by itself leaves you in a default agnostic position.
I can only conclude that this is a YES. ... Your approach is just dishonest RAZ.
Then you are, once again, making the wrong conclusion, because this does not change nor qualify the statement in yellow in any way. You leap to conclusions all the time, and most of the time they are wrong, and this is just another example.
What you have quoted here is the opening statement in a
discussion of what conclusions a person can hypothetically reach as a true skeptic, as described by Truzzi, and you are not reading what I say
AFTER that, but leap all over the place in another apoplectic fit and conclude something that is dishonest.
Your question was
NOT what position
→I (RAZD)← would take, nor what position YOU (or anyone) would HAVE to take, but what you (or anyone) could theoretically, hypothetically take ... (without committing yourself to actually taking it categorically, which would of course be silly). If someone happens to choose any other ranking, then that does not contradict the ranking you (or anyone) could theoretically, hypothetically take in any way. They could take a 1 or a 7, and again, big whap.
Now,
IF your question is
really whether your position of taking a subjective "6" position is
rational (and
not whether you can take a subjective scale "6" on hypothetical concepts that are untestable), then you should not play word games like hide-the-verbal-pea -- as that is a dishonest ploy, and a logical fallacy called the "Complex Question" fallacy
(1): was I supposed to be
tricked into a different conclusion by this deception? You do this constantly.
That question of
rationality is properly treated independently of the question of untested concepts.
You certainly have not shown or supported any contention that taking a subjective "6" position without having any substantial evidence to support the conclusion is rational. Plugging that in to a question on taking a subjective "6" position on untested concepts would be you assuming (or begging the question) that any subjective (6) position without supporting evidence can be rational, again a typical approach of yours.
Can you show me how a (D) conclusion below can be rationally derived?
question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a decision
on empirical (1) necessary or
valid evidence (2) can it be ignored?
=logical / \
conclusion (1) (2) ... but ... ?
(A) / | |
decide ignore make a
based on rather decision
inadequate than make anyway
evidence a decision based on
=guess =wait =opinion
(B) (C) (D) |
(yes that is a new refined more specific clarified version - like it?)
Now I believe that we can agree that an (A) conclusion is a logically derived position, that a (B) conclusion is
not a logically derived position but a practical one under adverse conditions, and that a (C) conclusion is not an
irrational position (whether you agree with the position or not), but what can be said about a (D) conclusion? Let me know eh?
Do you agree that taking a (6) position on untestable concepts is a (D) conclusion? If not, then what conclusion category is it?
That you do consider an atheistic stance towards the Hogwarts Hypothesis irrational and logically invalid even if you are willing to take a 6.9999 stance yourself ...
No Strags, that's you leaping tall buildings to reach false conclusions.
Curiously, it seems that I need to repeat myself, again: I consider a skeptical stance of 1 (or 1.0001 if you will :rolleyes at slicing the pea) to the fantasy stories and characters are and were intended to be fictional, substantially supported by substantial evidence of them being acknowledged by the author to be such, and from being treated by every reader know (some 450 million plus readers) as pure fiction. This is NOT an unsupported position, do you not agree? Would you not agree that this is as close as we can get to concluding that this is a FACT beyond any reasonable doubt?
Now I consider that the available evidence is all positive evidence for the concept that these books & characters are in actuality fictional: that is what the evidence at hand supports, and thus that is the appropriate concept to rank.
And I agree that the positive ranking for this specific concept inverts to a negative ranking for any concept contradicted by this specific concept, and this same evidence supports those inverse concepts being contradicted. But these are secondary rankings, derived from the specific concept ranking, rather than directly from the evidence, and thus they are not primary ranked concepts. Do you agree?
Contradicting a contrary concept does not prove a concept is valid (disproving evolution would not prove creationism), and thus extreme care needs to be taken on what concept is, and what concept is not, appropriate to give the primary ranking here (proving creationism true would invalidate large chunks of evolution theory).
Now if you consider your own principle of inversion (of positive rating for a concept to also be an equivalent negative rating for any concept contradicted by the original concept) means the inverse rating is not supported by the same substantial evidence, then you would seem to have a problem with your own principle, yes?
If we can't agree that the Hogwarts Hypothesis can be rationally rejected no mater how untestable it might be then I just have no faith at all in your sanity/honesty and have nothing more to say to you.
If your are NOW asking me what MY position would be on this specific concept, rather than what YOUR hypothetical stance could theoretically, hypothetically be on any hypothetical untestable concept, then that is a NEW question that you should ask and not assume. This answer has already been given, and my reason for approaching it the way I have, is now more fully clarified. If you still have trouble understanding this, then ask again.
Perhaps we should have this discussion in relation to refining the RAZD\Straggler Concept Confidence Scale, yes? We can then explore the details at that time eh?
The real question posed by you here, was whether or not the untestable concept can be placed in a (6) category so you can then reject it in order to ignore it. You seem to feel that you first need to classify it in order, and then reject it, before you can ignore it, while I don't.
If a concept is untestable, and therefore is necessarily not supported by any conclusive valid evidence, then I can rationally arrive at a (C) conclusion, and ignore the concept, and live my life secure in the knowledge that I have made the best evaluation and judgment possible from the available evidence.
However, if you feel that you
must reach a decision, then you are putting yourself in the (B) conclusion category, and I wonder what makes you feel you need to make a decision.
Enjoy
Notes:
(1) - Complex Question Fallacy from http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/cq.htm
quote:
Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.
Examples:
- You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.
- Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?
- Have you stopped using illegal sales practises? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)
Edited by Zen Deist, : adjusted spacing
™ Version 4.2
