How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
Straggles answers post with rap fantasy ... I thought Chuck77 did a better job of it ... I guess that's what you do instead of diagrams and charts that actually address the issues.
See Message 15 I think you will find all the answers there.
So the best you can do for an answer is rather silly mockery, and just some more of your continued program of poisoning the well(1) snide comments, a program that you have been engaged in fairly consistently for the last year -- attacking my credibility, because it appears you cannot attack my arguments and actually show that they are false.
Case in point: you cannot show that science is not founded on basic a priori assumptions, assumptions that are necessarily untestable and that without them the scientific conclusions cannot be reached.
Science assumes that objective evidence represents reality, and thus it is within the blue area.
Everything outside the blue area is the reason that science must be tentative, no matter how strong the confidence we can have in a theory, because it is possible that objective evidence lies and does not represent reality.
Once you or I and any scientist assumes that the evidence represents reality, we are in the same boat. We assume that the evidence does not lie.
Your reply (Message 126) did not address the issues but dodged them. The part quoted above was repeated again in Message 161, and your reply (Message 126) was another dodge rather than addressing the issue presented, and this was quoted again in Message 170 ... and your reply (Message 174) was ANOTHER dodge.
The astute reader of this thread will note that your latest reply (that was purportedly a response to another of my posts) is yet another dodge, that in fact virtually all of your later replies to me are dodges rather than replies.
So here is this one again, to see if you can address the issue (and the fact that these are all replies to your messages - you ask questions and ignore answers? Then ask why your questions aren't answered?)
Curiously, I did a little research to see what I could find about a priori assumptions, and I found several, including one that had this list (extracted from the article):(2)
that there exists an external objective reality,
that our senses are generally reliable,
that natural processes operate in a fairly consistent manner,
etc.
ie - that what we see is not illusion or false information, that the evidence represents reality, etc.
Do you AGREE with me that there indeed are a priori assumptions basic to the foundations of science?
YES ... or
NO ... and if no, please explain why ...
Now, curiously, a priori assumptions are by definition untestable: they are assumed to be true to see what develops as a result.
Do you AGREE with me that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?
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?
NOTE: I am not remotely suggesting that untestability demands that an atheistic stance be rationally taken for any given proposition. I am asking if untestability acts as a BARRIER to such a stance being taken.
So do you take "a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale)" on the a priori untestable assumptions of science
What "Dawkin's Scale(3) position do you take on the a priori assumptions of science that are by definition untestable?
1 - Strong theist.
2 - De facto theist.
3 - Leaning towards theism.
4 - Completely impartial
5 - Leaning towards atheism.
6 - De facto atheist ... or
7 - Strong atheist. ... and please explain why ...
Just a couple of simple questions, Strags, they should be easy to answer directly.
quote:This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.
quote:It is evident that theories and data by themselves are insufficient for science to work, and thus other factors are needed for science to operate. This group of factors in the nature of science is that of shaping principles, which can be used to select theories and form the foundations of science. Many assumptions are made in science. One example is the uniformity of nature. That is, the belief that natural processes operate in a fairly consistent manner. This shaping principle is the basis for the idea of natural laws. For example, Newton’s laws are said to apply throughout the universe.[33] This is believed even though scientists have not actually tested the laws everywhere in the universe. Natural laws could not exist in science without assuming the uniformity of nature. Other assumptions made for science to operate include that there exists an external objective reality, that our senses are generally reliable, and so forth.
quote: 1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." 2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." 3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." 4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." 5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." 6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." 7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
RAZD writes:
Now, curiously, a priori assumptions are by definition untestable: they are assumed to be true to see what develops as a result.
Do you AGREE with me that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?
YES ... or
NO ... and if no, please explain why ...
Curiously, the answer is 'No' because a priori assumptions are not by definition untestable. Assuming them to be true does not mean they are untested or untestable.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
Chuckles writes:
Panda writes:
Assuming them to be true does not mean they are untested or untestable.
Wierd.
quote:a priori assumption (ay pree or-ee) From Latin, an assumption that is knowable without further need to prove or experience it.
Notice in the definition where it says:
without further need to prove or experience it.
Yes. I notice it does not say it is untested or untestable. What do you think the word 'further' means in that context?
{abe}
Chuckles writes:
And also, if your going to misquote RAZD in his actual posts that you quote, atleast note it for everyone, or, just don't do it. You have the box checked *no* in your quote of RAZD when in fact in his post it is left un-checked.
Firstly, it is not unchecked. The 'Yes' is checked. (Use peek mode - the 'checked' flag is set.) Secondly, it was an interactive question: I interacted with it.
p.s. I wish you didn't delete your own posts when they embarrass you. It means I have to quote everything you post.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
RAZD writes:
Do you AGREE with me that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?
Panda writes:
Curiously, the answer is 'No' because a priori assumptions are not by definition untestable.
RAZD writes:
Do you agree that the a priori assumption that nature\reality exists is untestable?
You are moving the goal posts. Do you agree that your previous post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong? Do you still think that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
A process of deductive logic can only ever reveal that which is encapsulated within the assumptions one starts with. Nothing more.
Your deductively derived demands for agnosticism are more convoluted but ultimately no different in principle or method to your demonstration that 1 + 1 = 1 earlier in this thread.
If you cannot see why this is an insufficient basis upon which to consider the nature of science, or why it is a fools approach to investigating reality then I can only pity you.
Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
Hi Panda,
Still putting cheese on that jam sammich?
RAZD writes:
Do you AGREE with me that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?
Panda writes:
Curiously, the answer is 'No' because a priori assumptions are not by definition untestable.
RAZD writes:
Do you agree that the a priori assumption that nature\reality exists is untestable?
You are moving the goal posts. Do you agree that your previous post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong? Do you still think that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?
I gave you an example of one of the a priori assumptions ...
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists} is untestable, or can you show how to test it against omphalism, solipsism, and other forms of illusion\etc?
Do you agree that your previous post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong?
Can you give me an example of an a priori assumption that is testable? -- you've made the claim that there is at least one that can be tested, yes?
Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
Hi Strags,
I note that you have still failed to answer the questions -- having difficulty?
Your deductively derived demands for agnosticism are more convoluted but ultimately no different in principle or method to your demonstration that 1 + 1 = 1 earlier in this thread.
Which you, as a self-vaunted math teacher are apparently unable to show to be fallacious, so all you can do is try to dishonestly portray it as "convoluted" when it is quite simple - I don't believe anyone reading it has not understood it. Curiously your inability to actually criticize it speaks louder than your lame dismissal.
Your deductively derived demands for agnosticism ...
Another falsehood. On par with your straw man "absolute agnosticism" being false.
The open-minded skeptic uses logic and available information to arrive at conclusions, and when those do not provide the answers, says that we don't know, but we can have opinions, opinions based on our knowledge, experience, beliefs and worldview.
It does not DEMAND agnosticism, it demands that we recognize and acknowledge when\what we can know, and when\what we cannot, and it recognizes the difference between knowledge, assumption, and opinion.
A process of deductive logic can only ever reveal that which is encapsulated within the assumptions one starts with. Nothing more.
So you agree with me that the knowledge that can be scientifically tested and deduced from the evidence is necessarily encapsulated withing the a priori assumptions of science.
Excellent.
Now, do you also AGREE or DISAGREE with me that the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists} is untestable, or can you show how to test it against omphalism, solipsism, and other forms of illusion\etc?
Message 292 Strags 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?
So next, if you agree that the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists} is untestable, then let us know if you take "a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale)" on the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists} ...
What "Dawkin's Scale(1) position do you take on the a priori assumption {that nature\reality exists}?
1 - Strong theist.
2 - De facto theist.
3 - Leaning towards theism.
4 - Completely impartial
5 - Leaning towards atheism.
6 - De facto atheist ... or
7 - Strong atheist. ... and please explain why ...
Of course I find it rather humorous to think of concepts foundational to science in terms of being "theistic" ... but hey, you are the one who wants to use this scale (silly and subjective as it is).
Really just a couple of simple questions, Strags, they should be easy to answer directly.
quote: 1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." 2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." 3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." 4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." 5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." 6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." 7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
RAZD writes:
Can you give me an example of an a priori assumption that is testable? -- you've made the claim that there is at least one that can be tested, yes?
So now you are shifting the burden of proof. This is the second fallacy you have committed (the other one being goal-post moving). As you are someone who constantly points out other people's logical fallacies: you will therefore understand why I feel that you are being completely dishonest.
As I said to Chuckles:
quote:a priori assumption (ay pree or-ee) From Latin, an assumption that is knowable without further need to prove or experience it.
It does not say it is untested or untestable. What do you think the word 'further' means in that context?
Well, I will do your homework for you this time and then await your next deceitful response. Here is an example of a testable a priori: In economics it is a fundamental a priori assumption that consumers behave rationally. This can be tested by providing consumers controlled choices and collating the results or by analysing purchasing patterns.
Do you agree that your post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong? Do you still think that a priori assumptions are, by definition, untestable?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
How about you stop trying to convince yourself that you are right?
Seriously RAZ what is there to say that hasn’t been said already? All but your most committed fans must now realise that your ever changing array of scales, charts and conditions are nothing more than a giant circle of post-hoc justification for the things you have already decided anyway. And the tragic thing is you cannot even construct your little argument to give you the results you want without arbitrarily deciding which things you will and won’t apply it to. See Message 321
On you’re a-priori assumptions — Well it would be lovely and convenient if we could just assume whatever we need to justify ourselves in the way you want. But unfortunately things are not so simple. It's not like these questions haven't been considered and it's not like your ignorance of these things justifies your inane and simplistic assertions. See Message 278 and Message 282
On 1 + 1 = 1 you seem to be missing the point. Pick your assumptions and deduce what you want. But that isn't how reality works and that is why it CANNOT ever be be how science works. No matter how addicted to deduction you personally are science is necessarily reliant on other methods of knowing because it looks outwards to the unknown and not inwards to simply deriving the consequences of assumptions. I suggest you read a book or two on the subject. The Rationality of Science perhaps.
On Straggler the maths teacher — Well if you makes you happy I was actually a physics teacher who taught some maths on the side. But how long have we known each other? These are the things we should already know about each other RAZ. Maybe we should become better acquainted? Dinner and a movie? You can even bring Chuckles with you if you need a personal cheerleader in attendance.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
