Re: How about addressing the issues instead of the people making them
Chuck writes:
Notice in the definition where it says: "without further need to prove or experience it".
Exactly.
It has been concluded on the basis of past experience and can hence forth be assumed without further consideration unless a reason to doubt it surfaces.
And if we did discover a reason to doubt RAZ's little a-priori assumption what would science do? Fall apart at the seams? Simply stop? No.
If we found that all of reality was fake in some sense, that we were in the Matrix or somesuch, what would science do? It would expand to include attempts to hack the sourcecode etc.
The entire foundation of science isn't simply a baseless assumption, a castle made of sand, it is far more complex and interesting than these foolish self justifying assertions can ever hope to recognise.
I'd wager everyone has put forward their best arguments already. So, if you feel like it, please start posting your summaries. No further debate, please.
Would further discussion be as unfruitful as Percy suggests? Possibly. Probably even. But despite the relentless and at times seemingly pointless nature of these continual discussions I think many of us have learnt a great deal about science, the nature of evidence, philosophy etc. etc. along the way. Call me an optimist if you will.
Things may not be as fruitless as they seem. But I genuinely do now feel that there isn't any more need to tackle RAZ's particular argument. Rightly or wrongly I am satisfied that it isn't worth the effort. That it is a post-hoc act of circularity. Whether that will stop me being compelled to respond again when he inevitably cites his ever-changing scales and makes his ever present but ultimately fuckwitted "Ben Franklin in in a field without a means to test for electricity" analogy.... Maybe not. Because those who want their beliefs to be immune from atheistic rejection will always happily accept such arguments as profound insights without further questioning of the implications of such a stance. And - knowing myself - I will just have to challenge that.
Anyway. In summation I will simply quote someone else....
Bertie Russel writes:
"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
I feel that there has been a small degree of progress here.
RAZD/Zen Deist has accepted that it is possible to reject a belief based on arguments that are NOT based on direct evidence against it, using instead arguments based on likelihood and plausibility. He has also accepted that the mere possibility of error is not enough to justify agnosticism ( Message 129 )
He seems to have abandoned his modified Dawkins scale with it's attempts to label views he objects to as "logically invalid". But only after producing one of the worst arguments I have ever seen here. ( Message 131 )
He seems to have stopped his abuse of the term "pseudoskeptic" (see Message 105 for more on the proper use).
However, he has still refused to admit that there might be a logically invalid argument that is nevertheless rationally compelling, claiming that any such arguments "appeals to their confirmation bias, and then the logical fallacy of an "Appeal to Popularity"".
Therefore he must reject any predictive use of science. Which includes all the uses of scientific knowledge in technology and engineering, because all of them rest on general laws, derived by the logically invalid method of induction. To him, all such arguments are merely appeals to "confirmation bias" and "popularity".
Although it must be said this objection did not seem to stop him from using logically invalid arguments - including an appeal to popularity -when it came to rejecting the possibility of Lord Voldemort's existence !( Message 205 )
While Zen Deist/RAZD seemed to be initially taking a principled, but impractical, stand for agnosticism, that is no longer the case. The arguments for rejecting the existence of Lord Voldemort are too close to those for rejecting the existence of God to say that those arguments are wrong in principle. (see Message 209 in particular). Yet that was RAZD's main argument for all these years.
Instead - as Straggler argues - it comes down to evaluating the arguments rather than rejecting them out of hand. And in his rejection of Lord Voldemort, RAZD has finally admitted it in deed, if not in word.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Too bad.
I sense that the Gang of Four* would be even willing to LIE in order to discredit my brother. I also sense that my brother is willing to go off the deep end. I sense that I am willing to off the deep end. I sense that some of us on the sidelines pick our peccadilloes when it suits us.
FIRSTLY!: Consider this blatant mischaracterization from PaulK, and also claimed by Panda earlier in his argumentum ad populum:
Although it must be said this objection did not seem to stop him from using logically invalid arguments - including an appeal to popularity -when it came to rejecting the possibility of Lord Voldemort's existence !( Message 205 )
Panda says:
(But please don't post any argumentum ad populums. People believing something is true is not evidence - despite what RAZD thinks.)
Here is the actual relevant passage from Message 205:
There is no record of anyone thinking they are anything but fiction that I can find.
Since the 30 June 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide.[2] The series has also had some share of criticism, including concern for the increasingly dark tone. As of June 2011[update], the book series has sold about 450 million copies and has been translated into 67 languages,[3][4] and the last four books consecutively set records as the fastest-selling books in history.
So that amounts to at least 450 million inferred tests of the book being fantasy fiction and that the characters are fictional, with no known\reported contraditions.
Nor has any contradictory evidence (that the characters should be considered real) been presented, so that position is not supported.
You will notice, if you ninnies can read, that this refers to the Absence of Evidence, which is a legitimate form of SUPPORTING testimony, despite it not being, in and of itself, direct convincing evidence - such as he described elsewhere in Message 205. Instead the Gang of Four blindly latches on to this huge number, 450 million, and it's like a little pavlovian light bulb goes "ooo, I see a large number = argumentum ad populum". This indicates to me that the Gang of Four has a different agenda than arguing Scientific Knowledge, the title of this thread. Instead they would rather prefer to slash and burn. They seem to have a confirmation bias that RAZD is wrong and they will do everything they can to pick apart and quotemine whatever he says & twist it around to confirm their bias. It is truly sad to see defenders of the Atheist side resort to such deceitful techniques. These are my buddies??? Hello? Why do I, someone who does not think there is any need to posit a supernatural being at all, feel disgusted at my buddies. It's like watching my Red Sox blow the 2011 season. Disappointing.
There has been a pattern to caste out, to excommunicate if you will, one of your strongest proponents of evolution, all because he wishes to subjectively and privately think that there may indeed be an untestable pre-Big Bang Deist God who went off to do other things - this somehow upsets your applecart. Shame on you. And you accuse me of drinking.....
SECONDLY!: - ZD seems hellbent on being the first in history to find an ironclad way to use formal logic & the rigors of systematic analysis to eventually arrive at the position that not only does his position make sense - it can be proved. BEEEEEEEP - no. Not so. The Gang of Four has managed to make the subsequent attempts of recasting these approaches look "desperate". As Percy has said, the chances of anything interesting happening, anything changing, are now all but gone.
THIRDLY!: Can't we all agree that substantiated objective scientific evidence represents reality? Postulates or directly derived Theorems - who cares - any proper formal system can move the postulates and theorems around like musical chairs and either each can be postulated or derived within the whole system.
* Straggler, Panda and, now, PaulK these days - Modulous has responsibly gone elsewhere, and bluegenes is not in the building either.
So now you are shifting the burden of proof. This is the second fallacy you have committed (the other one being goal-post moving).
First, asking you to substantiate your own claim is not shifting the burden of proof.
Second, providing you with an example of an untestable (unless you can show otherwise ...) a priori assumption, to substantiate my assertion was at least true in some cases, and asking you to clarify your position on that, is not moving the goal-posts.
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.
So I should claim to be perfect yet? When you have pointed these out in the past I have amended my posts - I am not afraid of being corrected, or to admit when I am wrong.
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.
Congratulations. Thanks. You are correct -- that can be considered a case of an a priori assumption that can be tested.
Hope it wasn't too difficult to find.
Do you agree that your post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong?
I will agree that, yes, SOME a priori assumptions may be testable.
Do you still think that a priori assumptions are, by definition, untestable?
Nope. I overstated the matter a bit: some\many is not all. Got it.
So would you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that SOME a priori assumptions ARE untestable?
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?
quote:a priori assumption (ah-pree-ory) n. from Latin, an assumption that is true without further proof or need to prove it. It is assumed the sun will come up tomorrow. However, it has a negative side: an a priori assumption made without question on the basis that no analysis or study is necessary, can be mental laziness when the reality is not so certain.
In other words, those economists could have been better off treating their assumption as an hypothesis, and testing it before proceeding on the assumption that it was true, yes? Might actually get some better results ...
And neither of these definitions address the issue of foundational assumptions made, that cannot be tested, but that are necessary for the logical conclusions that are derived.
quote:a priori ( pr-r, -r, pr-r, -r) adj. 1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive. 2. a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience. b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience. 3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.
Assumed cause ... , derived without reference to facts or experience ... , made before or without examination ... THAT would certainly qualify as "untested" would you not agree?
Do your agree that this kind of untested a priori assumption would include the a priori assumptions that I listed in Message 349:
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):(a)
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.
Now we come back to the question of whether or not you agree that these assumptions are untestable:
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that these specific a priori assumptions "made for science to operate" ...
that there exists an external objective reality,
that our senses are generally reliable, and
that natural processes operate in a fairly consistent manner, ...
... are untestablea priori assumptions, or can you show how to test them against omphalism, solipsism, and other forms of illusion\etc?
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.
(bold and underline added for emphasis).
Edited by AdminModulous, : Summaries only, content hidden, use peek to view.
How about you stop trying to convince yourself that you are right?
You mean I should behave more like you trying to convince everyone that you are right?
... 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.
Which, not so curiously, is unnecessarily misrepresenting the scales, charts and refinements thereof. Science is improved by refining ideas to closer approximate reality, and yet you complain when this is done?
When I tried to get you to assist in the refinement you initially did, but then quickly back-peddled and started another pogrom of attacks. I wondered what bit you.
It appears that my brother is correct, that there is some kind of barrier(1) to actually looking at my posts and reading them for what they say and mean, and that it seems necessary to attack my person and credibility in order to discredit what I say. What can be so dangerous about ideas, that this reaction occurs?
These are the things we should already know about each other RAZ. Maybe we should become better acquainted? Dinner and a movie?
Ah, but we would never agree on which one ...
I have said, and still believe, that we are closer in thought than you think. What you reject and I ignore in our daily lives are likely very close, and I do think we can reach agreement on many of those charts you love so much.
Message 365 ... But I genuinely do now feel that there isn't any more need to tackle RAZ's particular argument. Rightly or wrongly I am satisfied that it isn't worth the effort. That it is a post-hoc act of circularity. Whether that will stop me being compelled to respond again when he inevitably cites his ever-changing scales and makes his ever present but ultimately fuckwitted "Ben Franklin in in a field without a means to test for electricity" analogy.... Maybe not.
And the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well" comes full circle -- you have now convinced yourself that you no longer need to engage ideas that challenge your beliefs. Cognitive dissonance theory(1) predicts this behavior, just as it predicts the "poisoning the well" behavior.
Curiously nobody has been able to actually say why the Ben Franklin analogy is actually faulty.
Because those who want their beliefs to be immune from atheistic rejection will always happily accept such arguments as profound insights without further questioning of the implications of such a stance. And - knowing myself - I will just have to challenge that.
And cognitive dissonance theory(1) predicts that you will.
In closing I will once again point out:
[color=purple]question[/color]
[color=purple]|[/color]
[color=purple]is there sufficient valid[/color]
[color=purple]information available to decide[/color]
[color=purple]|[/color] |
[color=purple]yes[/color] no
[color=purple]|[/color] |
[color=purple]decide based[/color] is a decision
[color=purple]on empirical[/color] (1) necessary or
[color=purple]valid evidence[/color] (2) can it be ignored?
[color=purple]=logical[/color] / \
[color=purple]conclusion[/color] (1) (2) ... but ... ?
[color=purple](A)[/color] / | |
decide ignore make a
based on rather decision
inadequate than make anyway
evidence a decision based on
=guess =wait/ignore =opinion ?
(B) (C) (D)
That when there IS evidence to support a conclusion, the rational logical conclusion is (A), but when there is insufficient evidence, and there is no compelling reason to reach a conclusion ...
[color=purple]question[/color]
[color=purple]|[/color]
[color=purple]is there sufficient valid[/color]
[color=purple]information available to decide[/color]
| [color=purple]|[/color]
yes [color=purple]no[/color]
| [color=purple]|[/color]
decide based [color=purple]is a decision[/color]
on empirical [color=purple](1) necessary or [/color]
valid evidence [color=purple](2) can it be ignored?[/color]
=logical / [color=purple]\[/color]
conclusion (1) [color=purple](2)[/color] ... but ... ?
(A) / [color=purple]|[/color] |
decide [color=purple]ignore[/color] make a
based on [color=purple]rather[/color] decision
inadequate [color=purple]than make[/color] anyway
evidence [color=purple]a decision[/color] based on
=guess [color=purple]=wait/ignore[/color] =opinion ?
(B) [color=purple](C)[/color] (D)
... the logical rational conclusion is (C), and ignore (for now) concepts that are too unsupported to reach a logical decision (rather than reject them). The extra steps of making a decision to reject concepts in order to ignore them is unnecessary.
In addition, I will note that nobody here has shown a valid logical reason to arrive at a (D) conclusion.
It is not logical or necessarily rational, but it is something we all do: these decisions are based on our experiences, education, beliefs and worldview when we do make them, and it is only honest to recognize that detail.
This is not "relentless agnosticism" nor "absolute agnosticism" rather it is being honest in what can be derived from evidence when available, from logic when evidence is not sufficient, and what is derived from one's experiences, education, beliefs and worldview when logic fails.
Further, I will always find it much more constructive to look at objective standards rather than subjective standards for evaluating how much confidence we can have in the different kinds of concepts:
... and I still want to know if you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that these changes are improvements ... perhaps in the next thread ...
Finally, I leave you with:
Where the orange area represents nature and reality, the gray area is our human concepts, the purple area is our concepts of nature and reality, and the blue area is the area covered by scientific knowledge and theory.
There is what we know, what we think we know, what we think we can know, and then there is the rest. We don't really know reality, but we assume that evidence represents reality, and that, by using the scientific method and testing, we can approximate reality in ever closer iterations. We assume that the conclusions derived by this process continue to apply to the real world, and therefore that we can predict studied behavior with confidence.
quote:Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. The phrase was coined by Leon Festinger in his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled the followers of a UFO cult as reality clashed with their fervent beliefs.[3][4] It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology. ...
Experience can clash with expectations, ...
The most famous case in the early study of cognitive dissonance was described by Leon Festinger and others in the book When Prophecy Fails.[5] The authors infiltrated a group that was expecting the imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that prediction failed, the movement did not disintegrate, but grew instead. By sharing cult beliefs with others, they gained acceptance and thus reduced their own dissonance ...
... When Prophecy Fails. This book gave an inside account of the increasing belief which sometimes follows the failure of a cult's prophecy. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, believing they alone would survive the Earth's destruction. The appointed time came and passed without incident. They faced acute cognitive dissonance: had they been the victim of a hoax? Had they donated their worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose to believe something less dissonant: the aliens had given earth a second chance, and the group was now empowered to spread the word: earth-spoiling must stop. The group dramatically increased their proselytism despite the failed prophecy.[12]
An overarching principle of cognitive dissonance is that it involves the formation of an idea or emotion in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a successful/functional person", "I am a good person", or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. ...
Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance.
It appears that my brother is correct, that there is some kind of barrier to actually looking at my posts and reading them for what they say and mean, and that it seems necessary to attack my person and credibility in order to discredit what I say. What can be so dangerous about ideas, that this reaction occurs?
It has become obvious through several hundred posts on many threads that your hyper-logic is not used to support science but to support your own personal brand of woo.
You seem to be using logic to keep your religious belief alive in spite of centuries of scientific findings that continually discredit any form of woo that can be empirically studied.
The odds against the things you are defending are so vanishingly small that you wouldn't think of betting on them in Las Vegas, but you have devoted literally hundreds of posts to defending them here.
One can only conclude that you'll do most anything to support your personal brand of woo.
(Sorry, no charts and diagrams, nor even twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored glossy photographs with circles and arrows. But it'll have to do.)
Edited by AdminModulous, : content hidden, summations only please
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
One can only conclude that you'll do most anything to support your personal brand of woo.
Is what I have posted about science wrong?
Is what I have posted about logic wrong?
Is what I have posted about how we humans reach decisions wrong?
Can you point to a specific place in my last post (Message 369) - or any on this thread - where I even mention my beliefs?
Have you ever seen me defend my personal beliefs?
It seems to me that you will take any opportunity to dismissively disparage beliefs that conflict with your own, even when they are not involved, and are willing to attack the person and not the message.
Enjoy.
Edited by AdminModulous, : summary posts only, content hidden
It seems to me that you will take any opportunity to dismissively disparage beliefs that conflict with your own, even when they are not involved, and are willing to attack the person and not the message.
Not an attack, just an observation.
Edited by AdminModulous, : summaries only, content hidden.
And yet you do not see it as curious that your "summation" did not address a single point made by anyone on this thread, but rather single out and address only your personal opinion of my beliefs ?
Really?
Enjoy
Coyote Message 374: I believe I addressed the extreme-logic you used to support your beliefs, and referenced the massive amounts of scientific data that contraindicate them.
No Coyote, you didn't -- you just expressed your opinion based on assumptions. You still don't know what my beliefs are, so you cannot know whether or not they are contraindicated, nor does science, in all it's complete explanation of the universe, begin to contraindicate them.
In a nutshell, I believe that science and logic are the best way to understand how the universe et al came to be, and how it all works -- whether by natural causes or by supernatural fiat is irrelevant.
Enjoy
Edited by AdminModulous, : Summaries only, content hidden.
Edited by Zen Deist, : edited within hidden area to add response
And yet you do not see it as curious that your "summation" did not address a single point made by anyone on this thread, but rather single out and address only your personal opinion of my beliefs ?
I believe I addressed the extreme-logic you used to support your beliefs, and referenced the massive amounts of scientific data that contraindicate them.
Edited by AdminModulous, : summaries only, content hidden.
It's amazing the audacity some people have on this site. When one goes under another one pops up.
Coyote for instance had a grand total of two posts here out of the then 370. The only reason Coyote showed up here was to mock? Discredit? Misrepresent? Insult? RAZD. No summation whatsoever. None. Nothing. Nadda. Ziltch. Zippo. Just here to rag on RAZD after he put in so many good posts, time, thought, to this thread only to get attacked in just about all the summations.
I agree with Xongsmith when he says the gang of four (+ Coyote?) has a different agenda than arguing Scientific knowledege on this thread. The summations show him to be right. Straggler, PaulK, Coyote, all took shots in their summations. Unfairly misrepresenting RAZD who is open minded and open to ideas about the reality we live in. For someone they say is constantly barking up the wrong tree they sure do follow along biting at his heels, which incidently they are always looking up at.
He thinks being open minded is a more logical approach than being closed minded. Well, I agree.
... we could foresee the effect, even without experience; and might, at first, pronounce with certainty concerning it, by mere dint of thought and reasoning. Now whether it be so or not, can only appear upon examination; and it is incumbent on these philosophers to make good their assertion, by defining or describing that necessity, and pointing it out to us in the operations of material causes. (Hume, 1737)
I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist. I must also confess that, though all the learned, for several ages, should have employed themselves in fruitless search upon any subject, it may still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively that the subject must, therefore, pass all human comprehension. (Hume, 1737)
This question (the problem of necessary connection and causation) I propose as much for the sake of information, as with an intention of raising difficulties. I cannot find, I cannot imagine any such reasoning. But I keep my mind still open to instruction, if any one will vouchsafe to bestow it upon me. (Hume, 1737)
™ Version 4.2
(1)
