Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.” ~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." - Mark Twain in Eruption
December 7, 2016 at 10:06 am (This post was last modified: December 7, 2016 at 10:50 am by Mister Agenda.)
bennyboy Wrote:
Mister Agenda Wrote:But it's not a necessary entity. Shave it off. Occam's razor isn't just about picking the simplest explanation, it's about picking the simplest explanation consistent with observation. It is sometimes stated as: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. God is a big assumption. A more complex hypothesis can be preferable to a simpler one under the razor if the additional entities in the complex hypothesis are necessary.
You are saying exactly what I said about 2 posts ago, and which you gave kudos to.
But I've given a particularly specific definition of God: a philosophical creative principle, i.e. something which preceded the Universe (logically, not necessarily temporally), but is itself not of the universe. All things would come from it, but it itself wouldn't be a thing. All mind would come from it, but it itself wouldn't be (or have) a mind.
The problem with the God idea really only comes into play when people start making narratives of it talking to their ancestors, and using this as the basis for blowing up buildings or cutting off heads. As a philosophical idea, it really isn't more complex than anything else. Nor does any other explanation offer answers where a vague God-as-principle idea fails to.
You can define God in a potentially infinite number of ways and still ascribe it as the 'simplest' explanation for anything. You can define it as a philosophical creative principle or a cosmic rutabaga and it makes no difference as far as explanatory power goes.
I didn't realize that kudo-ing a post obliged me to 100% agreement. I'll fix it.
bennyboy Wrote:You are saying exactly what I said about 2 posts ago, and which you gave kudos to.
I checked, and the last post of yours that I gave a kudo to was #362. I can't find one where you said exactly what I said and I kudoed it. Could you give the post number of the post you're talking about, please?
(December 7, 2016 at 10:06 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: You can define God in a potentially infinite number of ways and still ascribe it as the 'simplest' explanation for anything. You can define it as a philosophical creative principle or a cosmic rutabaga and it makes no difference as far as explanatory power goes.
That's right. However, since nothing has any explanatory power with regard to ultimate ontology, that's not really a big strike against it.
I think as soon as you start talking in absolute philosophical terms, the "that which is most essential to the existence of existence," etc., you can see that these kind of ideas are already represented as the "logos" of Greek philosophers, etc. and that this idea is tied into the idea of godhood, particularly in the Bible.
This is not to be conflated with Sky Daddy, or a personal deity, however.
Quote:The team at the University of Warwick found that as many as 50% of us are completely willing to accept memories being told to us, that never (ever) happened.
In the study, participants were repeatedly ‘reminded’ of things that happened in the past - including taking a hot air balloon ride as a child, playing a prank on a school teacher, and causing chaos at a family wedding.
Despite these situations being made up by the researchers in a laboratory, 30% of people involved in the study appeared to ‘remember’ the event - not only accepting it but going on to elaborate on details and describe the scene.
Then a further 23% of people accepted it to some degree, agreeing that it had happened to them.
Although this has implications on an individual level, it spells bigger problems for society as a whole, as memory is widely taken as law in court rooms and forensic investigations.
Not only that, but if people are subjected to misinformation in the news about certain events, this can lead to widespread false memory.The team at the University of Warwick found that as many as 50% of us are completely willing to accept memories being told to us, that never (ever) happened.
In the study, participants were repeatedly ‘reminded’ of things that happened in the past - including taking a hot air balloon ride as a child, playing a prank on a school teacher, and causing chaos at a family wedding.
Despite these situations being made up by the researchers in a laboratory, 30% of people involved in the study appeared to ‘remember’ the event - not only accepting it but going on to elaborate on details and describe the scene.
Then a further 23% of people accepted it to some degree, agreeing that it had happened to them.
Although this has implications on an individual level, it spells bigger problems for society as a whole, as memory is widely taken as law in court rooms and forensic investigations.
Not only that, but if people are subjected to misinformation in the news about certain events, this can lead to widespread false memory.
Mandela effect! I tried pointing out that particular phenomenon in roadrunner's last thread about testimony, but he "didn't understand" how it was a relevant comparison, lol.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
I believe this is an error in use, of the Occam's Razor. The difficulty, and I believe what was shown in this particular call, is that background knowledge varies (it's subjective), and previous beliefs should not be the measuring stick of new evidence (especially if you are going to insert lying, mistake, or delusional and the like). This is good, if you want to hold to the your beliefs and ignore evidence (but then it would seem difficult or at least hypocritical to criticize another for doing the same thing).
The formation of new opinion must always be checked by prior knowledge, else it is based on nothing but groundless supposition which is itself irrational. You can't make a rational leap based on what you don't know. Therefore the acquisition of new knowledge will always be conservative. This is only sensible. What are you suggesting, that one should depend upon an affirmative endorsement of evidence that one isn't qualified to understand?
(December 6, 2016 at 1:36 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
According to Wikipedia:
You may also find simpler in place of fewest assumptions, but I find that this is often misunderstood, in that simpler is better, even if it does not account for all the facts. Therefore, I do prefer the above quote from WikiP.
The most similar claim made by Occam himself was
or don't add more than what is needed. I do find that this shows where the simpler and fewest assumptions terms come into the picture in the above definitions.
I could see this as applying, in that, as you add collaborating testimony, then it is required to make more assumptions, in adding lying, mistaken, or in error. And I would agree, that this does often apply the testimony of science. Although I may caution against merely assuming this, and fore going checking out what others say, simply because someone make a claim of science.
I think you're misunderstanding the application of Occam's razor here. Whenever a hypothesis as endorsed by testimony requires the assumption of unevidenced components to one's model of reality, they automatically acquire a burden of unjustified necessities which is not so with the lie, mistake, or error explanations. So it becomes a straightforward Bayesian choice of alternatives among competing hypotheses in which the hypothesis elucidated by testimony loses. So, no, I think you are in error here.
I do agree, and I'm not saying, that we should fore go our background knowledge. But we also need to examine where there are assumptions are in that background knowledge as well, and consider that we may be incorrect.
The problem I have, is that in this instance the caller implied much the same as you are here. If we can just dismiss evidence without reason; as lying, mistake, or error in this way; then I think it gives credence to a number of groups, which I think we would both consider to be out in left field. I don't think that you can criticize the method in one instance, and endorse it in another; without being hypocritical. I have even seen some here, who said they would deny evidence they had observed for themselves, using much the same words as you do here.
December 9, 2016 at 12:02 pm (This post was last modified: December 9, 2016 at 12:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
By "we" I think you must mean other people, because it's obvious, nearly 40 pages of obvious.... that you aren't interested in doing any of that.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Quote:The team at the University of Warwick found that as many as 50% of us are completely willing to accept memories being told to us, that never (ever) happened.
In the study, participants were repeatedly ‘reminded’ of things that happened in the past - including taking a hot air balloon ride as a child, playing a prank on a school teacher, and causing chaos at a family wedding.
Despite these situations being made up by the researchers in a laboratory, 30% of people involved in the study appeared to ‘remember’ the event - not only accepting it but going on to elaborate on details and describe the scene.
Then a further 23% of people accepted it to some degree, agreeing that it had happened to them.
Although this has implications on an individual level, it spells bigger problems for society as a whole, as memory is widely taken as law in court rooms and forensic investigations.
Not only that, but if people are subjected to misinformation in the news about certain events, this can lead to widespread false memory.The team at the University of Warwick found that as many as 50% of us are completely willing to accept memories being told to us, that never (ever) happened.
In the study, participants were repeatedly ‘reminded’ of things that happened in the past - including taking a hot air balloon ride as a child, playing a prank on a school teacher, and causing chaos at a family wedding.
Despite these situations being made up by the researchers in a laboratory, 30% of people involved in the study appeared to ‘remember’ the event - not only accepting it but going on to elaborate on details and describe the scene.
Then a further 23% of people accepted it to some degree, agreeing that it had happened to them.
Although this has implications on an individual level, it spells bigger problems for society as a whole, as memory is widely taken as law in court rooms and forensic investigations.
Not only that, but if people are subjected to misinformation in the news about certain events, this can lead to widespread false memory.
Yeah recall essentially consists of confabulation followed by sniffing the results for truthiness.
(December 9, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: By "we" I think you must mean other people, because it's obvious, nearly 40 pages of obvious.... that you aren't interested in doing any of that.
Indeed.
RR can dismiss whatever he wants. It doesn't matter what any individual thinks. What matters is the evidence. It's not meant to be a bartering system.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
