On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 06:22 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2015 07:01 PM by Stevil.)
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course, it is obvious that it is an example to illustrate the principle.
The point of that example is that there is no discernible difference between the undetectable and the non-existent. That claiming the existence of something that is undetectable, therefore unfalsifiable, has no meaning.
I would say that the point of the example is that for a claim to be assessed it needs to include falsifiable criteria.

It is the falsifiable criteria which distinguishes the observable difference between something existing or not.

I maintain that Carl's analogy was in support of a viewpoint focused on the claim rather than the subject of the claim.

My evidence (compelling for me) that Carl's focus is on the claim rather than the subject is found in Carl's conclusion.

Quote:the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
His conclusion is to reject the claim rather than to reject the subject of the claim. Regarding the subject of the claim he suggests to be open to future physical data.
He has not rejected the subject of the claim. He has thrown out the claim itself and puts no more thought into the subject of the claim until a point where future data comes in.


EDIT:
Your evidence in support of your position (as to what Carl's point was), is to point to a rhetorical question from within Carl's analogy. One that Carl didn't answer and didn't include in his own conclusion. The rhetorical question can equally be used towards your case as it can towards my case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 06:06 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Well, no.

The claim was "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

And we're back to denying the plainly obvious and pretending that it hasn't been pointed out before.

We're officially done here, folks. Post-game summary is as follows:

Garage dragons are defined as fundamentally undetectable entities, which is self-contradictory and nonsensical, as existence requires interaction, and interaction necessitates the ability to be detected. Thus, garage dragons do not exist by definition.

This confuses no one save Stevil, who then proceeds to spend thirty pages quote-mining and dodging a very direct and simple question which would instantly shatter the opposition if he were capable of answering it, finally resorting to flat-out ignoring those who point out his disingenuous behavior and repeating the same actions within the space of a page.

Tune in next week for his follow-up performance in the upcoming discussion "Is Blue Red?"

Yeah, time to walk away. Drinking Beverage

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, 06:39 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.

How would you know that the completely undetectable dragon exists?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 06:47 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 04:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 04:51 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

Since you are unqualified to consider anyone an idiot, let me demonstrate who is the actual idiot here. Address the following concerns.

How would you know that the completely undetectable dragon exists?

Oh by the way, it has not gone unnoticed that you are avoiding my post back here.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 07:00 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 07:01 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(21-08-2015 03:54 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, what atheist here has proclaimed to have evidence of the nonexistence of anything, let alone any given theist or deist's god claims?

(21-08-2015 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  The absence of evidence that should be there is very much the evidence of absence.

Here, Chas is proclaiming to have evidence for the nonexistence of god. Just sayin....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 07:07 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 06:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course, it is obvious that it is an example to illustrate the principle.
The point of that example is that there is no discernible difference between the undetectable and the non-existent. That claiming the existence of something that is undetectable, therefore unfalsifiable, has no meaning.
I would say that the point of the example is that for a claim to be assessed it needs to include falsifiable criteria.

It is the falsifiable criteria which distinguishes the observable difference between something existing or not.

I maintain that Carl's analogy was in support of a viewpoint focused on the claim rather than the subject of the claim.

My evidence (compelling for me) that Carl's focus is on the claim rather than the subject is found in Carl's conclusion.

You have clearly misunderstood what I have posted. The 'garage dragon' was always a metaphor. It was you who kept harping on invisibility, magical, etc.

Quote:
Quote:the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
His conclusion is to reject the claim rather than to reject the subject of the claim. Regarding the subject of the claim he suggests to be open to future physical data.
He has not rejected the subject of the claim. He has thrown out the claim itself and puts no more thought into the subject of the claim until a point where future data comes in.


EDIT:
Your evidence in support of your position (as to what Carl's point was), is to point to a rhetorical question from within Carl's analogy. One that Carl didn't answer and didn't include in his own conclusion. The rhetorical question can equally be used towards your case as it can towards my case.

Not just the rhetorical question - also the following commentary, some of which I quoted.

And one does not answer a rhetorical question - that is why it is called a rhetorical question. It is asked to make a point.

You have utterly misrepresented my position, likely because you misunderstood me.

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, 07:14 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 07:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  And one does not answer a rhetorical question - that is why it is called a rhetorical question. It is asked to make a point.
Sometimes people ask a rhetorical question and then proceed to answer it themselves. The point is that they are not waiting for the audience to answer it.

(22-08-2015 07:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have utterly misrepresented my position, likely because you misunderstood me.
That is possibly true, I have no intent to misrepresent you, only an intent to understand. I often bounce back my own understanding in my own words so that they can agree or clarify back to me if I have it wrong.

Anyway, we don't have to come to an agreement. I can see both points of view (although if I have misrepresented you then perhaps I am not seeing your point of view). I don't accept (my perception of) your point of view as likely because of reasons I have documented. But I can see both points of view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 07:15 PM
On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 07:01 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-08-2015 03:54 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, what atheist here has proclaimed to have evidence of the nonexistence of anything, let alone any given theist or deist's god claims?

(21-08-2015 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  The absence of evidence that should be there is very much the evidence of absence.

Here, Chas is proclaiming to have evidence for the nonexistence of god. Just sayin....

:facepalm:

*rams head into the wall*

*mutters to himself*
maybe English isn't his first language and he doesn't understand that all he words have meaning

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
22-08-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(22-08-2015 07:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 07:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  And one does not answer a rhetorical question - that is why it is called a rhetorical question. It is asked to make a point.
Sometimes people ask a rhetorical question and then proceed to answer it themselves. The point is that they are not waiting for the audience to answer it.

Not really - it is a rhetorical device:
"A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point rather than to elicit an answer"
-Wikipedia

Or possibly an actual dictionary definition.

Quote:
(22-08-2015 07:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have utterly misrepresented my position, likely because you misunderstood me.
That is possibly true, I have no intent to misrepresent you, only an intent to understand. I often bounce back my own understanding in my own words so that they can agree or clarify back to me if I have it wrong.

Anyway, we don't have to come to an agreement. I can see both points of view (although if I have misrepresented you then perhaps I am not seeing your point of view). I don't accept (my perception of) your point of view as likely because of reasons I have documented. But I can see both points of view.

Refer to what a rhetorical question is and why it is used, you will see that it is central to the argument.

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: