On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 02:18 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 01:51 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 01:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Presupposing them for the sake of analogy, on the other hand... ?


But that sort of dogmatic agnosticism is entirely pointless.


That is a misrepresentation of Sagan, either through misunderstanding or dishonesty. We know precisely what he meant to illustrate: the non-interacting is indistinguishable from the non-existent.

"Alien life" has a coherent definition and demonstrable antecedent despite the lack of evidence. Nor is it in principle unfalsifiable (particularly within realistically limited contexts).

None of which applies to the ever-incoherent and vague "god".

Then why did Sagan reject strong atheism and describe the position of arrogant?

Because strong atheism requires proof that it doesn't have.

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
22-08-2015, 02:27 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 01:23 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I would argue that it is not viable to propose aliens at all without evidence. I just also think it's a mistake to rule out aliens without negating evidence.

Have you ever encountered the Drake Equation?

It is 'viable' to propose anything for which there is real justification.

We know life exists, both intelligent and not. We know there are billions and billions of possible locations that could support some sort of life.
We are justified in believing there is very probably life elsewhere, and likely intelligent life somewhere.

I agree that if I had to guess, I would guess that the universe is littered with life.

But if I made that the claim that I know intelligent aliens exist with no evidence, would you think that is a reasonable claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you are reading more into it than is there. There is more in the chapter, but not in the example.
Well, no actually.
I'm reading less into the analogy. You are thinking that the analogy means the subject of the claim must be invisible and incorporeal because in Carl's analogy his dragon becomes invisible and becomes incorporeal. But for some strange reason you are not reading into it that the subject needs to be a dragon or needs to breath fire. It seems to me that you are cherry picking.

Try reading what I actually wrote because I never said that. I can't tell whether you are really this stupid or really this dishonest.

I said undetectable - which is what Sagan said.

Quote:I, on the other hand am not assuming that the subject needs to be invisible or incorporeal or a dragon or fire breathing. It's just an analogy.

Yet you think I did. Consider QUOTE ME or shut the fuck up. Angry

Quote:
(22-08-2015 02:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  His point is about anything undetectable.
To a degree.

No, not to a degree. Read what he actually wrote.
"I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work."
That is the freakin' definition of undetectable.

Quote:His point is about a claim which does not offer detectable criteria even though at first look you might think there ought to be detectable criteria.
He starts off with a claim of a fire breathing dragon in the garage. Seems very detectable doesn't it.

What part of "I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work." are you having so much trouble parsing? All of it?

Quote:But then when you look for it and don't see it, then the claimant changes their story. They come up with an excuse, in the instance of the analogy they make the dragon invisible. But it could have just as likely been that you weren't looking for big foot in the correct place. It is not important for the subject to be invisible, that would be taking the analogy too far.

It is important that it be undetectable by any physical test.

Quote:From RationalWiki, the give us an apt introduction as to the purpose of the analogy
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
Quote:"The Dragon In My Garage" is a chapter in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, which presents an analogy where the existence of God is equated with a hypothetical insistence that there is a dragon living in someone's garage. This is similar to Russell's Teapot in the way it forms an apt analogy for the concepts of the burden of proof and falsifiability. The main thrust of how Sagan develops the garage-dwelling dragon example is that the proponent employs increasingly ad hoc reasoning to describe their belief in the face of further questions. Eventually, the goalposts are moved in such a way as to render the initial assertion practically unfalsifiable. In a more general sense, this part may be done during the initial definition of the belief, or as when replying to critical examination of the belief in question.
This explanation has nothing to do with your and Unbeliever's point that the subject must be invisible and undetectable.

Quote me saying that or shut the fuck up.

I'm ignoring the rest of your condescending drivel.

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, 02:34 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:18 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why should they be? They are not in our universe.

But would you agree that they even if they are undetectable, that wouldn't mean they don't exist?

No, I claim that there is no reason to suppose they do.

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
22-08-2015, 02:35 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:27 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Have you ever encountered the Drake Equation?

It is 'viable' to propose anything for which there is real justification.

We know life exists, both intelligent and not. We know there are billions and billions of possible locations that could support some sort of life.
We are justified in believing there is very probably life elsewhere, and likely intelligent life somewhere.

I agree that if I had to guess, I would guess that the universe is littered with life.

But if I made that the claim that I know intelligent aliens exist with no evidence, would you think that is a reasonable claim?

Of course not. It is no more reasonable than claiming the existence of pixies or gods.

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
22-08-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:18 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  But would you agree that they even if they are undetectable, that wouldn't mean they don't exist?

No, I claim that there is no reason to suppose they do.

So is it fair to say that you differ from free in that you don't automatically assume that everything is impossible until proven possible?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:27 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I agree that if I had to guess, I would guess that the universe is littered with life.

But if I made that the claim that I know intelligent aliens exist with no evidence, would you think that is a reasonable claim?

Of course not. It is no more reasonable than claiming the existence of pixies or gods.

Ok, we agree on this. Just trying to find common ground. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:45 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I claim that there is no reason to suppose they do.

So is it fair to say that you differ from free in that you don't automatically assume that everything is impossible until proven possible?

I have not and do not agree with that. It is too strong an assertion.

But until there is evidence for something, it stays in the pure speculation bin.

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
22-08-2015, 04:24 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yet you think I did. Consider QUOTE ME or shut the fuck up. Angry
You consistently confirm my opinion that you are a dick!

(22-08-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:To a degree.

No, not to a degree. Read what he actually wrote.
"I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work."
That is the freakin' definition of undetectable.
Nope!
Carl is clearly stating that the claim does not offer testible criteria not that the subject must be undetectable.
He is not excluding claims of non detectable things such as Big Foot, Loch Ness or UFO visits.

He is clearly saying that the claim does not offer any criteria that allows us to do the detection.
We can't detect big foot, not because big foot is magical and undetectable, but because the claim doesn't tell us when and where to look.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 04:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yet you think I did. Consider QUOTE ME or shut the fuck up. Angry
You consistently confirm my opinion that you are a dick!

I have little patience for dolts like you and Matt.

Quote:
(22-08-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, not to a degree. Read what he actually wrote.
"I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work."
That is the freakin' definition of undetectable.
Nope!
Carl is clearly stating that the claim does not offer testible criteria not that the subject must be undetectable.

He makes the point by making the dragon undetectable.

Quote:He is not excluding claims of non detectable things such as Big Foot, Loch Ness or UFO visits.

Those are not freakin' non-detectable. You do not understand the word or Sagan's point.

Quote:He is clearly saying that the claim does not offer any criteria that allows us to do the detection.

Because the claimed thing is not detectable.

Quote:We can't detect big foot, not because big foot is magical and undetectable, but because the claim doesn't tell us when and where to look.

That is not what undetectable means.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: