That's Not Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 11:53 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 08:42 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 08:08 PM)Free Wrote:  He will not understand for he is either incapable, or simply unwilling. It is persons such as he whom I was referring to here.

If I am a victim, which I am not, then you are a victim of confusion due to the RCC/ Pagans of ancient times and the age of enlightenment which was the intentional downfall of man caused by the powers that be. Thanks.

D... Did you just say the Age of Enlightenment was the downfall of man?

Laugh out load

Oh you'll laugh me to tears!
Weeping

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
13-08-2015, 11:56 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:19 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Is something is unfalsifiable then how is it not evident? Thanks.

Hey, great question.

Take for example, fairies. Why is it that in our day to day lives it is socially acceptable to say "fairies don't exist"? When you think about it, we can't prove they don't exists. We don't know for certain. We also can't prove they do exists.

So what? Well, do you think not having proof either way means we should start believing in fairies on that basis?

Fairies are an un-falsifiable proposition. The simple fact that we don't know for sure isn't evidence in and of itself.

More to the point, why do you think it is we can easily say that we more or less know they don't exist. Why is it that the default belief, under circumstances of lacking proof, is always negative with the big, fat, whopping exception of god?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Phoenix's post
13-08-2015, 11:57 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 12:01 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: That's Not Evidence
Dark Phoenix, I'd heartily recommend a close listen (or relisten) to AnticitizenX's excellent YouTube series, "Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics". He begins with some basic axioms, specifically that we are beings capable of experiencing and considering that experience, that we can act in ways that influence what we experience, and that we have some pragmatic preference in influencing future experiences to make them be one way and not another. Granted this might not be true for everyone, but this is true for MOST people. From this pragmatic basis, he arrives at the scientific method as the best epistemology possible simply on the basis of predictive power and the ability to use that predictive power to positively influence what we experience.

EDIT: He actually has a more explicit and pedantic set of axioms, but that's the basic strategy he follows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
14-08-2015, 12:00 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:22 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  A theory is just a theory or an "educated" assumption. True Faith brings confirmation which is evidence to the holder of said Faith.

That is certainly one definition of "Theory". However, I am talking about scientific theory, which is a specific technical term used only in science. Take for example, the Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory of Disease. Obviously, those are not reducible to a wild idea in someone's head, or some assumption.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 02:50 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:24 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 02:14 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  The quality of the evidence is irrelevant, it is always down to interpretation. Even the best "upper-case" evidence is ultimately subject to interpretation.

I feel you may be barking up the wrong tree here.

Archi

Wow really? So you don't think say, a successful scientific theory is an objectively better reason for believing something than say, its emotional appeal?

No, not at all.

To begin with I would challenge the 'objectivity' of any scientific theory. The idea that science is the disinterested pursuit of truth is a delusion used by the scientific community to justify the edifice of scientific authority, all scientific endeavour is anthropocentric.

Secondly, if anyone to thinks there is no emotional appeal to compiling a successful scientific theory or achieving some scientific goal they are wrong. Emotions are important to us, and there is nothing wrong with that. We are, after all, human.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 03:48 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 03:52 AM by ArchibaldFunkdust.)
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:19 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Is something is unfalsifiable then how is it not evident? Thanks.

Unfalsifiable means it is not possible to prove something false, that doesn't mean it is true it means there is no mechanism by which to prove it false.

For example: I have invisible gnomes living in the cupboard under my sink, these gnomes are undetectable by any scientific equipment.

The above example is unfalsifiable, it is, however, not evident there are gnomes under my sink either.

That is how.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 04:30 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 12:00 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:22 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  A theory is just a theory or an "educated" assumption. True Faith brings confirmation which is evidence to the holder of said Faith.

That is certainly one definition of "Theory". However, I am talking about scientific theory, which is a specific technical term used only in science. Take for example, the Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory of Disease. Obviously, those are not reducible to a wild idea in someone's head, or some assumption.

I like to use the term "predictive model" in place of the term "theory" whenever possible, unless specifically referring to a particular theory, a la Germ Theory or the Theory of Quantum Gravitation, or of course the Theory of Evolution, because the former causes much less confusion to the average person.

It makes my skin crawl when people use it in the "educated guess" sense of the term, as in "I have a theory about who killed him...".

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 05:46 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 06:05 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 11:02 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  I am certainly aware of the role of subjectivity. I feel that Atheists need to be fully aware of their biases and the many human tendencies to judge without objective merit. My argument is that Subjectivity and bias are not effective and reliable tools for determining objective truth, but rather stand as obstacles and often emotional cesspits, preventing clear rational thinking.

I think the very idea of clear rational thinking, is spooky stuff.

We're more inclined to believe we're thinking clearly than we actually are. We're more inclined to have our tendencies masquerade as our intellect. Evolution has clearly favored self-deception far more so than insuring our capacities for clear rational thought.

A thought is just a chemical reaction, likely interacting with a variety of other chemical reactions, that you're not remotely even aware of, conscious and unconscious factors. I'd wager that even the appeal of the idea of "clear rational thought", the appeal of being "objective thinking", the desire to downplay or even exclude your "subjective self", that involve a great deal of indirect factors far more closer to home than you are consciously even aware of. I have no doubt that my upbringing, my family life, my experiences as child, the love and dysfunctions of my parents, forms how I see and analyze the world, and why it might be different than others. I can't put that aside and analyze the world, that's a part of my wiring. What I might perceive as "clear thinking", is likely not be analogous to what you perceive as "clear thinking". Even if I imagined I have put all my emotions aside, it likely wouldn't be the same.

Quote:Even now, following in step with your thoughts on this, I could turn it around on you and claim that you are only making this argument in this way because you have suppressed subconscious emotions that render an acceptance of Atheism impossible for you emotionally. I could start listing possible subjective, illegitimate, reasons that could influence/cause your lack of neutrality.

That could very much be true, I sometimes even think about that. Often times when I hear atheists descriptions of reality and life, it comes off as entirely distorted to me, as people seeing people that look like trees. The way they examine the world, taking it in, and expressing how they see it, comes off maladaptive and warped. But then I think this might not be the case. That there perceptions seems entirely fluid to them, as my perceptions seem to me. That I'm just in a predicament of thinking of what it's like to be a bat. And the bat is wondering what it's like to be me. Without realizing that that's not possible for fundamental reasons. It's perhaps my inability to put myself in your head, that's being interpreted as a "distortion" in yours.

Perhaps our minds are fundamentally different, because of variety of factors outside of our control, a problem likely not to be resolved by acquiring the same level of education, or by reading the same books. That what you see as "clear" is fogged to me, and what I see as "clear" is fogged to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:31 PM)Free Wrote:  "God exists, so prove he doesn't."

That is an unfalsifiable claim.

It's not an unfalsifiable claim.

If you can prove physicalism is true, than you've falsified nearly every or every version of God imaginable.

If the picture of reality painted by "The Atheist Guide to Reality" is true, it would leave no gaps for God to fill.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 07:56 AM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(14-08-2015 07:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:31 PM)Free Wrote:  "God exists, so prove he doesn't."

That is an unfalsifiable claim.

It's not an unfalsifiable claim.

If you can prove physicalism is true, than you've falsified nearly every or every version of God imaginable.

If the picture of reality painted by "The Atheist Guide to Reality" is true, it would leave no gaps for God to fill.

Except physicalism is also unfalsifiable and unprovable. So, once again, you are wrong.

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: