Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 09:05 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(22-08-2015 08:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 07:56 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What about just be honest with yourself and others and call it a hypothesis?
Dodgy

How about you improve your vocabulary?

Sure, any conclusion is open to scrutiny, but nothing in your link suggests making conclusions without conclusive evidence. We always understand that we could arrive at the wrong conclusion, but that doesn't mean we go around making "tentative" conclusions based on limited (inconclusive) evidence. All that does is increase your chance of being wrong.

Your "tentative" conclusions sounds like a sales pitch....do they come with a money back guarantee?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 09:08 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(22-08-2015 09:05 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 08:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  How about you improve your vocabulary?

Sure, any conclusion is open to scrutiny, but nothing in your link suggests making conclusions without conclusive evidence. We always understand that we could arrive at the wrong conclusion, but that doesn't mean we go around making "tentative" conclusions based on limited (inconclusive) evidence. All that does is increase your chance of being wrong.

Your "tentative" conclusions sounds like a sales pitch....do they come with a money back guarantee?

Again it's either/or for you. Facepalm

One's conclusions can have any degree of certainty from a little to a lot.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2015, 09:11 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(22-08-2015 07:16 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Making conclusions on suggestive evidence is not wise. People who are interested in truth, form hypotheses from suggestive evidence. Then we go about trying to falsify and/or validate that hypothesis. Lack of validation doesn't render the hypothesis false, and likewise, lack of falsification doesn't validate the hypothesis. If we continue to gather more positive evidence than negative evidence, we might form a working hypothesis, or perhaps even a theory, but for those of us who are only interested in truth, we don't make a conclusion until we have conclusive evidence.

You gonna die trying to figure it out.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 04:14 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(22-08-2015 09:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 09:05 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Sure, any conclusion is open to scrutiny, but nothing in your link suggests making conclusions without conclusive evidence. We always understand that we could arrive at the wrong conclusion, but that doesn't mean we go around making "tentative" conclusions based on limited (inconclusive) evidence. All that does is increase your chance of being wrong.

Your "tentative" conclusions sounds like a sales pitch....do they come with a money back guarantee?

Again it's either/or for you. Facepalm

One's conclusions can have any degree of certainty from a little to a lot.

That's fine. I'm happy to admit that my only real gripe here is the word choice. IMO it's a bit misleading and unnecessary, but on to other things....

Perhaps you can clarify your position a bit. In the quote below, do you think that is sound reasoning? Does the fact that we don't know of alien spacecraft existing give us proof that they don't exist? Do you agree with TBD?

(22-08-2015 07:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  " I don't have proof that alien spacecraft exist, therefore, this is proof that alien spacecraft don't exist."


That IS the conclusion reached.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 05:49 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2015 06:06 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(22-08-2015 02:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:06 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I just can't get my head around someone knowing something without believing it to be true.

I don't believe there's any room for belief in analytical knowledge. There are conjectures but those are more like best guesses than beliefs. The example I gave before was the Pythagorean theorem is valid in Euclidean geometry but not in spherical geometry. This I know. So should I believe the Pythagorean theorem or not? I just don't see that there's anything to believe. There is no room for belief even in the axioms. I don't "believe" them I stipulate them to see where they lead.

My problem with this is that as far as I can tell, it doesn't address the question of: What does it mean when someone says they know something?

If you tell me that you know Pythagorean theorem is true in Euclidean geometry, and I have no knowledge of Pythagorean theorem, then all that I can gather is that the theorem is something you believe to be true. After I investigate the theorem, if I find it to be true, then I would agree with you that you know it, but if I found a flaw, then I would say that you don't know it. Obviously I'm not going to find any flaws in Pythagorean theorem, but surely you can agree that someone could claim a theorem that is flawed. In this case, we would say that the person didn't know the theorem was true, and that they only believed it. Maybe the problem is that we're just defining belief too differently. If I asked you if you think that Pythagorean theorem is true in Euclidean geometry, and you answer "yes", I think we could say that this is something you believe, as I would define belief as something you think is true, and if you answer "no", I don't we could say that you know it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 07:31 AM
Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 04:14 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 09:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Again it's either/or for you. Facepalm

One's conclusions can have any degree of certainty from a little to a lot.

That's fine. I'm happy to admit that my only real gripe here is the word choice. IMO it's a bit misleading and unnecessary, but on to other things....

Perhaps you can clarify your position a bit. In the quote below, do you think that is sound reasoning? Does the fact that we don't know of alien spacecraft existing give us proof that they don't exist? Do you agree with TBD?

(22-08-2015 07:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  " I don't have proof that alien spacecraft exist, therefore, this is proof that alien spacecraft don't exist."


That IS the conclusion reached.

Hey look, a cherry-picked single line from a paragraph I wrote. I bet that isn't fucking misleading or dishonest at all.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 07:50 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 07:31 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 04:14 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  That's fine. I'm happy to admit that my only real gripe here is the word choice. IMO it's a bit misleading and unnecessary, but on to other things....

Perhaps you can clarify your position a bit. In the quote below, do you think that is sound reasoning? Does the fact that we don't know of alien spacecraft existing give us proof that they don't exist? Do you agree with TBD?

Hey look, a cherry-picked single line from a paragraph I wrote. I bet that isn't fucking misleading or dishonest at all.

Well, if have misrepresented your position, perhaps you could clarify? If you meant something other than what you said, would you care to elaborate?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 07:50 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 07:31 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 04:14 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  That's fine. I'm happy to admit that my only real gripe here is the word choice. IMO it's a bit misleading and unnecessary, but on to other things....

Perhaps you can clarify your position a bit. In the quote below, do you think that is sound reasoning? Does the fact that we don't know of alien spacecraft existing give us proof that they don't exist? Do you agree with TBD?

Hey look, a cherry-picked single line from a paragraph I wrote. I bet that isn't fucking misleading or dishonest at all.

But... but... it's just so much easier to argue against people when you make up their positions for them!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
23-08-2015, 07:53 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 07:50 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 07:31 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Hey look, a cherry-picked single line from a paragraph I wrote. I bet that isn't fucking misleading or dishonest at all.

But... but... it's just so much easier to argue against people when you make up their positions for them!

I find it easier to just quote them directly. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 07:58 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 05:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I don't believe there's any room for belief in analytical knowledge. There are conjectures but those are more like best guesses than beliefs. The example I gave before was the Pythagorean theorem is valid in Euclidean geometry but not in spherical geometry. This I know. So should I believe the Pythagorean theorem or not? I just don't see that there's anything to believe. There is no room for belief even in the axioms. I don't "believe" them I stipulate them to see where they lead.

My problem with this is that as far as I can tell, it doesn't address the question of: What does it mean when someone says they know something?

If you tell me that you know Pythagorean theorem is true in Euclidean geometry, and I have no knowledge of Pythagorean theorem, then all that I can gather is that the theorem is something you believe to be true.

Except... not. That's his whole point. Belief is irrelevant; the theorem is a construct within Euclidean geometry.

(23-08-2015 05:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  After I investigate the theorem, if I find it to be true, then I would agree with you that you know it, but if I found a flaw, then I would say that you don't know it. Obviously I'm not going to find any flaws in Pythagorean theorem, but surely you can agree that someone could claim a theorem that is flawed.

A proven mathematical theorem is axiomatic.

(23-08-2015 05:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  In this case, we would say that the person didn't know the theorem was true, and that they only believed it. Maybe the problem is that we're just defining belief too differently. If I asked you if you think that Pythagorean theorem is true in Euclidean geometry, and you answer "yes", I think we could say that this is something you believe, as I would define belief as something you think is true, and if you answer "no", I don't we could say that you know it.

It's not a matter of definitions; he's given you a context in which it's simply irrelevant. To force the definition of "belief" to apply to the definitions of constructs is at best misguided.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: