On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 04:31 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said undetectable - which is what Sagan said.
Yes, but you clarified your position to me by excluding Big Foot because you deem Big foot to be detectable.

Why do you deem Big foot to be detectable? I am left to speculate because as is often the case with you Chas is that you don't clarify your position.

My speculation is, that you recognise that claims of Big foot don't include Big foot being invisible and incorporeal

Anyway, whatever. I know your not big at clarifying yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 04:35 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 04:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
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.
So to clarify your position, does something that is undectectable need to be invisible and incorporeal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 04:31 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said undetectable - which is what Sagan said.
Yes, but you clarified your position to me by excluding Big Foot because you deem Big foot to be detectable.

Why do you deem Big foot to be detectable?

If bigfoot exists, it is in principle detectable. It is supposed to be a physical, actual animal. It interacts with the environment.

Quote:I am left to speculate because as is often the case with you Chas is that you don't clarify your position.

Speculate away, but I can't seem to dumb it down enough for you.

Quote:My speculation is, that you recognise that claims of Big foot don't include Big foot being invisible and incorporeal

The garage dragon is undetectable by definition.

Quote:Anyway, whatever. I know your not big at clarifying yourself.

Your evidence for that? Put up or shut up.

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, 04:40 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 04:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 04:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is not what undetectable means.
So to clarify your position, does something that is undectectable need to be invisible and incorporeal?

If it isn't then it's detectable. How is that not obvious?

It also has to be weightless, odorless, and silent. So what?

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, 04:46 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Matt & Stevil,

Just one question I would like an answer to:

What is the difference between a completely undetectable dragon and a dragon that doesn't exist at all?

After 30 fucking pages of your tiresome bullshit, could you for once just answer the damn question?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 04:51 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 04:46 PM)Free Wrote:  Matt & Stevil,

Just one question I would like an answer to:

What is the difference between a completely undetectable dragon and a dragon that doesn't exist at all?

After 30 fucking pages of your tiresome bullshit, could you for once just answer the damn question?

I've answered it, but I'll answer it again. It is glaringly obvious that the difference would lie in existence. One exists, one doesn't. That seems to be the only difference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 04:54 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 02:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Well, no actually.
You are thinking that the analogy means the subject of the claim must be invisible and incorporeal...

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.


(22-08-2015 04:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 04:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So to clarify your position, does something that is undectectable need to be invisible and incorporeal?

If it isn't then it's detectable. How is that not obvious?

This is why I came to the conclusion that you think for something to be a "garage dragon" that it needs to be "invisible and incorporeal"

But when I state this, as my understanding of your position, you then go off on your usual rant "Try reading what I actually wrote because I never said that."
But as it turns out you do think that way, and you expected that it was obvious for me to get that out of what you had previously stated.

So I was correct in my assessment of your postion and yet you state "Try reading what I actually wrote because I never said that."

FFS!
You are impossible to discuss things through with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 04:55 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 04:51 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 04:46 PM)Free Wrote:  Matt & Stevil,

Just one question I would like an answer to:

What is the difference between a completely undetectable dragon and a dragon that doesn't exist at all?

After 30 fucking pages of your tiresome bullshit, could you for once just answer the damn question?

I've answered it, but I'll answer it again. It is glaringly obvious that the difference would lie in existence. One exists, one doesn't. That seems to be the only difference.
We've both answered it multiple times. Free is just an idiot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 05:24 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 04:51 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 04:46 PM)Free Wrote:  Matt & Stevil,

Just one question I would like an answer to:

What is the difference between a completely undetectable dragon and a dragon that doesn't exist at all?

After 30 fucking pages of your tiresome bullshit, could you for once just answer the damn question?

I've answered it, but I'll answer it again. It is glaringly obvious that the difference would lie in existence. One exists, one doesn't. That seems to be the only difference.

That answer is, as has been explained previously, incoherent and nonsensical.

The question is "what difference is there between a universe where it is real and one where it is not?" To say that the former case is different because the garage dragon is real is circular. That isn't what was asked. That is what you are attempting to establish. What actual, measurable, quantifiable difference is made in the universe where the garage dragon exists compared to the one where it does not? In what way can the garage dragon actually be said to exist?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 05:28 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2015 05:46 PM by Stevil.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  The garage dragon is undetectable by definition.
The garage dragon claim was
Quote:A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage.

And RationalWiki's explanation of the Garage Dragon' point was
Quote: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.
It's all about our different interpretations of Carl's analogy and what point is trying to be conveyed.

We are both approaching it from different viewpoints.
You are focusing on certain aspects the subject of the claim that Garage Dragon includes for its dragon. Your viewpoint is the subject of the claim. (i.e. that the subject must be physically undetectable)
I am focusing on the incomplete claim and the evolution of the claim for which the analogy steps us through how this happens. My viewpoint is the claim itself (i.e. that the claim must be practically unfalsifiable)

For you the subject needs to be undetectable in a physical objective way.
For me the claim needs to be incomplete, not offering any practical unfalsifiable criteria even if the unfalsifiable criteria may seem to be within arm's reach.

For you the point of the Garage Dragon analogy is limited to a claim with a subject of a Deist's god.
For me the point of the Garage Dragon analogy applies to any unfalsifiable claim (especially those that aren't fully documented and allows the claimant to continue added to it). This includes (claims for Deist gods, claims for any god, claims for ghosts, claims for legendary creatures a.k.a. big foot, loch ness, leprechauns, UFO crashes or abductions, etc...)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: