(July 9, 2019 at 9:57 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(July 4, 2019 at 8:20 am)wyzas Wrote: You should be disturbed by the higher percentage of "don't know". 

And I'm going to guess that they included a high number of chiropractors in the survey.  

To me "don't know" is one of the most honest answers to the question. I'm a bit disturbed by the rest of the people who claim knowledge that they absolutely do not have.

On a side note, I used to work at a chiropractor's office as an MT. He had this wacky room full of pseudoscientific devices. A few of them were decent... like a stretching machine. But most of them were bogus.

I think the jury is still out on getting your back cracked. (Can anyone correct me on this?) He did it for me for free on occasion (since I worked there). It seemed to offer some relief to me... or felt good at the very least. IDK.

You may consider it an honest answer but I'm not convinced. How many unsupported propositions (no evidence) am I supposed to consider before I take a position more than maybe/maybe not?

Re Chiro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropract..._criticism

(July 9, 2019 at 10:13 am)wyzas Wrote: You may consider it an honest answer but I'm not convinced. How many unsupported propositions (no evidence) am I supposed to consider before I take a position more than maybe/maybe not?

The fact is, I don't have any reason to believe in Russell's teapot. So I don't believe it's there. But I cannot honestly say it's not there either. That's a claim: Russel's teapot is not there. If I'm going to make a claim, I need to support it. I can't do that. Therefore, if I am going to be honest concerning my claims, I will never say I know it's not there. I can say there is no reason to believe it. I can even add that it's absurd to believe a miniature teapot orbits the sun. But I can't say it's not there. That's knowledge I don't have.

Quote:Re Chiro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropract..._criticism

Thanks. That was quite informative. I had no idea that the entirety of chiropractic "theory" is founded on nonsense. Pretty bad when people who practice and teach it want to categorize it as a religion to avoid the difficulties in its foundational principles.

(July 9, 2019 at 11:28 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(July 9, 2019 at 10:13 am)wyzas Wrote: You may consider it an honest answer but I'm not convinced. How many unsupported propositions (no evidence) am I supposed to consider before I take a position more than maybe/maybe not?

The fact is, I don't have any reason to believe in Russell's teapot. So I don't believe it's there. But I cannot honestly say it's not there either. That's a claim: Russel's teapot is not there. If I'm going to make a claim, I need to support it. I can't do that. Therefore, if I am going to be honest concerning my claims, I will never say I know it's not there. I can say there is no reason to believe it. I can even add that it's absurd to believe a miniature teapot orbits the sun. But I can't say it's not there. That's knowledge I don't have.

But that's just it, Russell's teapot is not your idea, not your original claim, the proof is on the other. It's OK to say "I don't know what's there", but I/you don't need to indulge the ideation of the teapot. 

But you be you. I'm certainly not going to give even passing/neutral credence (the maybe) to a fantasy proposition.

(July 9, 2019 at 9:57 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(July 4, 2019 at 8:20 am)wyzas Wrote: You should be disturbed by the higher percentage of "don't know". 

And I'm going to guess that they included a high number of chiropractors in the survey.  

To me "don't know" is one of the most honest answers to the question. I'm a bit disturbed by the rest of the people who claim knowledge that they absolutely do not have.

On a side note, I used to work at a chiropractor's office as an MT. He had this wacky room full of pseudoscientific devices. A few of them were decent... like a stretching machine. But most of them were bogus.

I think the jury is still out on getting your back cracked. (Can anyone correct me on this?) He did it for me for free on occasion (since I worked there). It seemed to offer some relief to me... or felt good at the very least. IDK.

I find relief by having my dog chew on my big toe nail, but, for some reason, he stopped doing that a month or so ago. Perhaps he felt it too degrading.

(July 3, 2019 at 10:18 pm)Jehanne Wrote: One can be an open atheist and at the same time a well-respected scientist:

Pew Research Center -- Scientists and Belief

In particular, I was pleased to see the percentage of physicists and astronomers who were wholly atheistic:

---

---

Wow, it's almost as if being well-educated and intelligent lessens the likelihood that one is religious. Imagine that!



/sarcasm

Interesting post though... I wonder what god's children have to say about this?

(July 9, 2019 at 5:46 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(July 3, 2019 at 10:18 pm)Jehanne Wrote: One can be an open atheist and at the same time a well-respected scientist:

Pew Research Center -- Scientists and Belief

In particular, I was pleased to see the percentage of physicists and astronomers who were wholly atheistic:

---

---

Wow, it's almost as if being well-educated and intelligent lessens the likelihood that one is religious. Imagine that!



/sarcasm

Interesting post though... I wonder what god's children have to say about this?

He was either Lord, Liar or Lunatic. (Duh.)

(July 9, 2019 at 2:22 pm)wyzas Wrote: But that's just it, Russell's teapot is not your idea, not your original claim, the proof is on the other. It's OK to say "I don't know what's there", but I/you don't need to indulge the ideation of the teapot. 

But you be you. I'm certainly not going to give even passing/neutral credence (the maybe) to a fantasy proposition.

If someone has a claim that they propose I adopt as true, they carry the burden of proof. I have no reason to accept their claim as true unless I find the proof they offer satisfactory. We agree there, right?

But that's what I'm, saying, Brew. No one can offer satisfactory proof that giant invisible creator leprechauns don't exist. People who say, "I have no reason whatsoever to believe that giant creator leprechauns exist" are highly reasonable. But people who say, "I know that giant creator leprechauns don't exist" (while also very reasonable) have no basis for the knowledge they claim. The claim that "giant creator leprechauns don't exist" is a positive claim. If you say that, you carry the burden of proof. And (as reasonable as it is to deny the existence of giant creator leprechauns) the claim that they do not exist is just as completely unfounded as the claim that they do.

This isn't lending the leprechaun hypothesis undue credence. It's honestly stating what you do and do not know.

(July 9, 2019 at 9:33 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(July 9, 2019 at 2:22 pm)wyzas Wrote: But that's just it, Russell's teapot is not your idea, not your original claim, the proof is on the other. It's OK to say "I don't know what's there", but I/you don't need to indulge the ideation of the teapot. 

But you be you. I'm certainly not going to give even passing/neutral credence (the maybe) to a fantasy proposition.

If someone has a claim that they propose I adopt as true, they carry the burden of proof. I have no reason to accept their claim as true unless I find the proof they offer satisfactory. We agree there, right?

But that's what I'm, saying, Brew. No one can offer satisfactory proof that giant invisible creator leprechauns don't exist. People who say, "I have no reason whatsoever to believe that giant creator leprechauns exist" are highly reasonable. But people who say, "I know that giant creator leprechauns don't exist" (while also very reasonable) have no basis for the knowledge they claim. The claim that "giant creator leprechauns don't exist" is a positive claim. If you say that, you carry the burden of proof. And (as reasonable as it is to deny the existence of giant creator leprechauns) the claim that they do not exist is just as completely unfounded as the claim that they do.

This isn't lending the leprechaun hypothesis undue credence. It's honestly stating what you do and do not know.

Ah, you don't accept the claim as true without proof/evidence yet you seem to not be able to claim it as false. That is lending credence in my book.

Do you take this position with people who are actively delusional or hallucinating (medically)? In my world I have to be able to deny claims that are mental constructs and state that they do not exist (except as mental constructs).

I completely understand your position but I can't operate in a strictly philosophical world.

(July 9, 2019 at 10:04 pm)wyzas Wrote:

(July 9, 2019 at 9:33 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: If someone has a claim that they propose I adopt as true, they carry the burden of proof. I have no reason to accept their claim as true unless I find the proof they offer satisfactory. We agree there, right?

But that's what I'm, saying, Brew. No one can offer satisfactory proof that giant invisible creator leprechauns don't exist. People who say, "I have no reason whatsoever to believe that giant creator leprechauns exist" are highly reasonable. But people who say, "I know that giant creator leprechauns don't exist" (while also very reasonable) have no basis for the knowledge they claim. The claim that "giant creator leprechauns don't exist" is a positive claim. If you say that, you carry the burden of proof. And (as reasonable as it is to deny the existence of giant creator leprechauns) the claim that they do not exist is just as completely unfounded as the claim that they do.

This isn't lending the leprechaun hypothesis undue credence. It's honestly stating what you do and do not know.

Ah, you don't accept the claim as true without proof/evidence yet you seem to not be able to claim it as false. That is lending credence in my book.

Do you take this position with people who are actively delusional or hallucinating (medically)? In my world I have to be able to deny claims that are mental constructs and state that they do not exist (except as mental constructs).

I completely understand your position but I can't operate in a strictly philosophical world.

Delusion of a few = mental illness
Delusion of many = organized religion, which insists on being respected.

(July 9, 2019 at 10:36 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 9, 2019 at 10:04 pm)wyzas Wrote: Ah, you don't accept the claim as true without proof/evidence yet you seem to not be able to claim it as false. That is lending credence in my book.

Do you take this position with people who are actively delusional or hallucinating (medically)? In my world I have to be able to deny claims that are mental constructs and state that they do not exist (except as mental constructs).

I completely understand your position but I can't operate in a strictly philosophical world.

Delusion of a few = mental illness
Delusion of many = organized religion, which insists on being respected.

It will be interesting to see if the gap narrows. I doubt I'll be alive to experience it.