(January 23, 2016 at 6:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The answer to your question, btw, is pretty simple.  We have a far better and well evidenced explanation, that's how.

What question? What explanation? 

I don't like making assumptions, so please be more precise - quote my question so I know what you are talking about, state the explanation so that I can test your claims about it.

Thanks!

---

(January 23, 2016 at 6:03 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Probably, is not a truth claim it just means as far as we can tell. Since there is no evidence of design or of designers for the universe, as far as we can tell there are none. Its not a matter of taking his claim on faith, all we have to do is look to the lack of evidence.

I'm a scientist, so for me - "probably" means that we are in possession of facts or reasoning which allow us to calculate a probability, and a probability that is over 50%

If you wish to define "probably" as "as far as we can tell", then I'm happy to work from that definition.


However, an argument from "as far as we can tell" is an argument from ignorance.

Steps in. This appears to be your first thread. Welcome! Steps out.

(January 23, 2016 at 6:04 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 5:53 pm)phil-lndn Wrote: The claim is not an absolute but it is still absolutely a truth claim because it says "probably". 

That word has a very specific rational meaning. Use of the word requires supporting fact and reason to justify use of the word. 

Since you seem to be defending it, can I take it that you are happy to take his claim on faith, without any sort of supporting fact and reason?

---

False dichotomy (both, please)

Do you take it on faith that there are no invisible purple unicorns prancing around you this very minute? Or that you are being screwed up the butt by beings from another universe who can make pleasure themselves without you realizing it?  Or do you just assume these sorts of things aren't real because there is no evidence to support them?

If someone makes a truth claim to you, that there are invisible purple unicorn from another dimension screwing you in the ass right this minute, but you cannot feel it because they are outside our dimension, what would your response be?

I have no opinions on invisible purple unicorns. If someone were to make the truth claim that there are invisible unicorns screwing me in the ass right this minute, I would however naturally be very curious and would ask the person - what is your evidence for this truth claim? 

So, back to my unanswered question. Do you take Christopher's claim on faith?

(January 23, 2016 at 6:06 pm)phil-lndn Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 6:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The answer to your question, btw, is pretty simple.  We have a far better and well evidenced explanation, that's how.

What question? What explanation? 

I don't like making assumptions, so please be more precise - quote my question so I know what you are talking about, state the explanation so that I can test your claims about it.

Thanks!

---

(January 23, 2016 at 6:03 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Probably, is not a truth claim it just means as far as we can tell. Since there is no evidence of design or of designers for the universe, as far as we can tell there are none. Its not a matter of taking his claim on faith, all we have to do is look to the lack of evidence.

I'm a scientist, so for me - "probably" means that we are in possession of facts or reasoning which allow us to calculate a probability, and a probability that is over 50%

If you wish to define "probably" as "as far as we can tell", then I'm happy to work from that definition.


However, an argument from "as far as we can tell" is an argument from ignorance.

It's not an argument from ignorance because it does not exclude the option of designers or anything else being possible. It is simply saying since there is no evidence for designers of universe then there is no reason to accept the claim that they exist.

(January 23, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 6:06 pm)phil-lndn Wrote: What question? What explanation? 

I don't like making assumptions, so please be more precise - quote my question so I know what you are talking about, state the explanation so that I can test your claims about it.

Thanks!

---

I'm a scientist, so for me - "probably" means that we are in possession of facts or reasoning which allow us to calculate a probability, and a probability that is over 50%

If you wish to define "probably" as "as far as we can tell", then I'm happy to work from that definition.


However, an argument from "as far as we can tell" is an argument from ignorance.

It's not an argument from ignorance because it does not exclude the option of designers or anything else being possible. It is simply saying since there is no evidence for designers of universe then there is no reason to accept the claim that they exist.

OK, your argument sounds correct from that definition. Because the conclusion didn't sit right, I have checked the dictionary definition for "probable", i think it supports my previous definition rather than "as far as we can tell".

probable:
1. likely to occur or prove true
2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
3. affording ground for belief.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probable

(January 23, 2016 at 5:29 pm)phil-lndn Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 4:44 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: I want to ask why we should not mock and ridicule the beliefs of others, and what interest any of us should have in sharing a planet with people who are prepared to blow themselves up to appease their imaginary friend?

Simple - because it's not optional. There are billions of pre-rational religious people on the planet.

Unless we are going to somehow wipe out around 2/3rds of the planet's population, we are going to have to find a way to live with them peacefully. 

We already live successfully with lots of primitive dangerous beings. Crocodiles, lions etc. The key to living successfully with dangerous organisms without living in fear is to understand them.

So your options are give up values of the 'enlightenment' (I am still curious to know what exactly about it are obsolete) or kill? I am in no way advocating murder, that is ludicrous.

It must be noted that we do already live in relative peace. We are in fact in one of the most peaceful periods of humanity's history.

The clash of civilisations is a disproven theory if by nothing else than the fact that most conflicts are, by Huntingdon's thesis and definition, intra-civilisational. I would recommend further reading by instrumentalists and de-constructivists on the thesis.Fukuyama's last man is a good start, though I don't necessarily advocate the conclusions.

It seems like your proposal is to capitulate to the distinctly backwards and intolerant ideologies that persist and fester in areas of the world still 'to get along'. Your proposal is not one I would adopt. Rather, just more of what we already do. Develop, advance, evolve.

A further question. Do you give more, less, or equal credence to the un-evidenced hypothesis of universe creation or the null-hypothesis?

(January 23, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 5:29 pm)phil-lndn Wrote: Simple - because it's not optional. There are billions of pre-rational religious people on the planet.

Unless we are going to somehow wipe out around 2/3rds of the planet's population, we are going to have to find a way to live with them peacefully. 

We already live successfully with lots of primitive dangerous beings. Crocodiles, lions etc. The key to living successfully with dangerous organisms without living in fear is to understand them.

So your options are give up values of the 'enlightenment' (I am still curious to know what exactly about it are obsolete) or kill? I am in no way advocating murder, that is ludicrous.

It must be noted that we do already live in relative peace. We are in fact in one of the most peaceful periods of humanity's history.

The clash of civilisations is a disproven theory if by nothing else than the fact that most conflicts are, by Huntingdon's thesis and definition, infra-civilisational.

It seems like your proposal is to capitulate to the distinctly backwards and intolerant ideologies that persist and fester in areas of the world still. Your proposal is not one I would adopt. Rather, just more of what we already do. Develop, advance, evolve.

I am not advocating "giving up" the values of the enlightenment, I am advocating transcending but including these values into a new more powerful perspective that's able to understand much much more deeply.

Regarding what is obsolete, I covered in this post

And no, my proposal is not to capitulate. 

People from more primitive worldviews have a very different values and value systems to people from the rational worldview. It's essential to know what these values are, if a world is to be created where different developmental worldviews are able to live together peacefully. With an understanding of the different value systems, I think it may be possible to create such a world. 

It's going off the topic for this thread, but if you look at the world through a lens of developmental psychology, it's possible to make the argument that many if not most of the wars and fighting on the planet at the present time are clashes between different worldview value systems.

(January 23, 2016 at 7:17 pm)phil-lndn Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: It's not an argument from ignorance because it does not exclude the option of designers or anything else being possible. It is simply saying since there is no evidence for designers of universe then there is no reason to accept the claim that they exist.

OK, your argument sounds correct from that definition. Because the conclusion didn't sit right, I have checked the dictionary definition for "probable", i think it supports my previous definition rather than "as far as we can tell".

probable:
1. likely to occur or prove true
2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
3. affording ground for belief.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probable

Look up the definition for probably rather than probable.

(January 23, 2016 at 6:06 pm)phil-lndn Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 6:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The answer to your question, btw, is pretty simple.  We have a far better and well evidenced explanation, that's how.

What question? What explanation? 

I don't like making assumptions, so please be more precise - quote my question so I know what you are talking about, state the explanation so that I can test your claims about it.

Thanks!

Is there some reason that you need me to restate -your- question? The question that was the sole impetus for your rant about an author in the first place?  

Quote:WOW! But how? How can we possibly be sure about that? Given that we are located inside these "plans", how can we possibly see outside of them to know from whence the plans themselves came?

There are no givens.  We have a better and well evidenced explanation than "plans" and "from whence they came".  Wonder in one hand, shit in the other.