(April 11, 2014 at 11:48 pm)tor Wrote: Well I agree that nature of the claim does indeed affect how I should take a look at testimonies. But even if whole world believed that earth is flat I would not take it. It's not how many people believe something it's WHY they believe it that is important.
And no it tells us nothing about wizards.
I don't know how many ways I can put this without you responding to a straw man. I'm sorry, but you are just plain lying if you're saying that if everyone besides you believed something you wouldn't be highly inclined to accept it too. This is just true of how human beings operate, first off.
Now, to repeat. Claims are evidence for something by definition. A claim that one has a dog is evidence to others that one has a dog. Various other evidences increase the probability that such is true. No one, much less me, has said that mere claims are GOOD evidence that extraordinary claims are more likely to be true than otherwise. But they are nonetheless evidence. It doesn't tell us ABOUT wizards, but it does increase the probability that wizards exist than if claims of their existence were never made.
(April 12, 2014 at 1:03 am)Jiggerj Wrote: I've always said that math wizards could manipulate their equations to prove the universe is made out of peanutbutter if they wanted to. I just never expected anyone to use math to prove the existence of a mystical magical being.
And no one has.
Quote:If your thinking held any merit, then every child ever born has witnessed some kind of monster: in the closet, under the bed, in the attic, cellar, vacant house, forest... So, the probability that the boogeyman exists must be very high, yes?
Yeah, you don't understand what was being said. This is about the probability that something is true being increased when evidence is given. However, in the case of monsters and wizards we have MUCH more evidence that the probability that they exist is effectively zero.
(April 12, 2014 at 8:40 am)Cato Wrote: I think people are abusing the concept of probability and forgetting to account or the fact that people imagine things all the time. Imagining something doesn't necessarily make the imagined more probable.
No one is forgetting that, nor are they saying simply imagining things makes them probably existent.
Quote:I can imagine waking up tomorrow with a stalk of broccoli having grown out of my left eye. Will anyone argue that the probability meter for this event has moved off the low peg simply because I have imagined it?
Straw man that was never argued for.
Quote:Someone also asked for the definition of evidence. I am inclined to believe this person is being coy, but this should help if the inquiry was sincere:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
I've always enjoyed this quip:
Quote: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
― Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals
Personally, I think it's ridiculous to talk of evidence divorced from observation; i.e., treating claims as evidence. If someone says "Godzilla exists" the only proper reply should be something along the lines of "Oh yeah? Show me." At this point there is simply not enough information to suggest Godzilla is possible, let alone probable to any degree. Claims must also be weighed against all current knowledge. This means that not all claims merit the same consideration or deserve investigation: claim - "I woke up with broccoli protruding from my eye"; reply - "Bullshit".
Coffee and I have been saying that repeatedly. No one has suggested divorcing evidence from observation or not weighing it against all current knowledge. This is a fundamental misunderstanding.
Of course claims are evidence. If I say "I'm an atheist", you're likely to think that's true simply because I said it. And my further posts which sem consistent with my claim of being an atheist boost the probability that I am in fact what I claim. That's the difference between claims of wizards existing and claims of being an atheist that others like Tor have been missing. There is further evidence for one claim than the other, and one such claim we have mountains odf countervailing evidence against. But the claims themselves are still evidence, even if it's not good evidence.
