Author
|
Topic: Revisiting the Great Faith Wars (Read 20516 times) |
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.84
Rate Fritz
  
|
 |
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #30 on: 2009-12-19 18:03:44 » |
 |
Quote:| [Mermaid]dear lucifer, i thought you were a scientist. what is the basis of your beliefs re "astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui"? (i am not touching trickle down economics) |
[Fritz]Hey Mermaid; is this the line of reasoning you were heading down ?
Source:CSI
Being a skeptic implies that we consistently apply the methods of skepticism to all claims. However, all skeptics, even Einstein, are, at best, selectively skeptical.
Many readers of the Skeptical Inquirer (the authors included) have labeled or referred to ourselves as “skeptics,” which implies objectivity in our approach to evaluating various claims. However, we all have limitations and built-in biases that hinder our ability to apply the methods of skepticism objectively and consistently. Nonskeptics and professed skeptics alike are equally vulnerable to developing beliefs that have not been subjected to rigorous skeptical inquiry. Furthermore, skeptics (like nonskeptics) may refuse to change their viewpoints even in the face of substantial discrediting evidence.
Thus, skeptics would be well served to realize that we are selectively skeptical. Our purpose here is to (a) make clear why no consistent skeptic exists, (b) review the major biases that obstruct our ability to apply skepticism consistently, (c) provide a concrete example of selective skepticism in a great mind (Albert Einstein), and (d) challenge skeptics to reevaluate their own ability to apply the methods of skepticism consistently.
Does a ‘Consistent Skeptic’ Exist? <snip> ..... [Fritz]much more
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #31 on: 2009-12-19 20:09:48 » |
|
Fritz
To argue that a hypothesised system has validity, some observable evidence must exist that compels the consideration of that theory and some mechanism must be present to establish a connection through which the observed effect operates. All else is belly lint. "Astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shu" (as well as climate scepticism, the canals of Mars - and trickle down economics for that matter) all fall into the realms of belly lint.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #32 on: 2009-12-19 20:37:00 » |
|
[Lucifer 12] I don't think the addendum adds anything to my definition because it is logically implicit. If there is a mountain of evidence against some assertion, then there is necessarily sufficient evidence to believe the logical inverse of the same assertion.
[Hermit 14] I don't think it is this simple in logic or in common language usage (which often are at loggerheads suggesting a deliberate effort to prevent logic from being applied). For example, I think you may need to think hard about the paradox of material implication and its impact on your conclusions. For example, "If DNA alteration occurs during transubstantiation then the babble is true" is a logically true statement because DNA change does not occur. Even so, as the if clause is not satisfied, the sentence, though true, does not make a statement about the truth value of the babble because the statement does not assert, "if DNA alteration does not occur during transubstantiation then the babble is false". Remapping the problem domain to a social problem as suggested by "Wason's selection dilemma" might help you think about it further.
[Lucifer 22] I'm not sure what your objection is here. Here's an example to clarify my point: consider the assertion "the earth is less than 10,000 years old". I think we can agree that there is scant evidence to support the assertion and a mountain of evidence against it. The logical inverse of the assertion is "the earth is not less than 10,000 years old" or equivalently "the earth is older than 10,000 years". I see this as simple in logic and in common language.
[Hermit 32] We can agree on the particular subject, but from a logical perspective even in this simple example, there are serious problems. Not knowing what the evidence was, we don't KNOW that it supported an older earth, only that it invalidated the proposition. Are there alternatives you have not considered? Could the Earth be 10,000 years old (exactly) and not older? We both know the answer to this, but not from the propositional statement you made or the evidence you presented.
[Hermit 32] Let me try for a slightly more illustrative example with which we are both familiar, say that the proposition is, "The sea is water." A mountain of evidence is then gathered to the effect that the sea contains various things which are not water. What are you able to conclude about the sea knowing only the proposition and the research? If "A" is "the sea" and "B" is "water" then we have A = B and A != B. As there is "a mountain of evidence" for A!=B the probability is that it is true and that the initial proposition is false. Unfortunately, we cannot draw any other inference from this without additional propositions and data, not even that the "sea is mainly water" let alone that "the sea is salt water."
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #33 on: 2009-12-19 21:26:48 » |
|
all i am saying is that i would rather be the frog that got out of the well.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- Hamlet, Shakespeare.
Quote from: Fritz on 2009-12-19 18:03:44
Quote:| [Mermaid]dear lucifer, i thought you were a scientist. what is the basis of your beliefs re "astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui"? (i am not touching trickle down economics) |
[Fritz]Hey Mermaid; is this the line of reasoning you were heading down ?
Source:CSI
Being a skeptic implies that we consistently apply the methods of skepticism to all claims. However, all skeptics, even Einstein, are, at best, selectively skeptical.
Many readers of the Skeptical Inquirer (the authors included) have labeled or referred to ourselves as “skeptics,” which implies objectivity in our approach to evaluating various claims. However, we all have limitations and built-in biases that hinder our ability to apply the methods of skepticism objectively and consistently. Nonskeptics and professed skeptics alike are equally vulnerable to developing beliefs that have not been subjected to rigorous skeptical inquiry. Furthermore, skeptics (like nonskeptics) may refuse to change their viewpoints even in the face of substantial discrediting evidence.
Thus, skeptics would be well served to realize that we are selectively skeptical. Our purpose here is to (a) make clear why no consistent skeptic exists, (b) review the major biases that obstruct our ability to apply skepticism consistently, (c) provide a concrete example of selective skepticism in a great mind (Albert Einstein), and (d) challenge skeptics to reevaluate their own ability to apply the methods of skepticism consistently.
Does a ‘Consistent Skeptic’ Exist? <snip> ..... [Fritz]much more
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.69
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #35 on: 2009-12-20 01:33:56 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-17 11:17:23 Let's consider two cases in order to tease apart the concepts of faith and dogmatism.
Imagine a dogmatic atheist. Let's say they didn't arrive at their stance through reason but rather because they grew up in communist Russia. They happen to be correct in that the balance of evidence agrees, but they are dogmatic in that they are unwilling to question the party line.
Next imagine an AGW skeptic. Actually you don't have to imagine, professional skeptic James Randi just came out of the closet. Now assuming the balance of evidence supports AGW, Randi is wrong in his views but I'm also assuming as a skeptic he would not be dogmatic about it.
So now given these cases which is the greater sin? Faith (being wrong) or dogmatism (unwilling to adapt).
|
One of my enduring goals in life remains to screw up in new and interesting ways rather than just the same old ways over and over. So yeah its not so bad to simply being wrong at some point, but behaving dogmatically about it. Hence the real ethical sin of dogmatism reveals itself.
And true, some people are simply atheists because its their way of hating their parents who happen to be religious. Nothing necessarily good or bad about that situation, and generally a subject immune to my concern or lack thereof.
love,
Mo
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #36 on: 2009-12-20 01:59:14 » |
|
[Lucifer 22] I'm not sure what your objection is here. Here's an example to clarify my point: consider the assertion "the earth is less than 10,000 years old". I think we can agree that there is scant evidence to support the assertion and a mountain of evidence against it. The logical inverse of the assertion is "the earth is not less than 10,000 years old" or equivalently "the earth is older than 10,000 years". I see this as simple in logic and in common language.
[Hermit 32] We can agree on the particular subject, but from a logical perspective even in this simple example, there are serious problems. Not knowing what the evidence was, we don't KNOW that it supported an older earth, only that it invalidated the proposition. Are there alternatives you have not considered? Could the Earth be 10,000 years old (exactly) and not older? We both know the answer to this, but not from the propositional statement you made or the evidence you presented.
[Lucifer] You're right, "the earth is not less than 10,000 years old" is equivalent to "the earth is older than or equal to 10,000 years old", not "the earth is older than 10,000 years". With that correction, my example stands.
[Hermit 32] Let me try for a slightly more illustrative example with which we are both familiar, say that the proposition is, "The sea is water." A mountain of evidence is then gathered to the effect that the sea contains various things which are not water. What are you able to conclude about the sea knowing only the proposition and the research? If "A" is "the sea" and "B" is "water" then we have A = B and A != B. As there is "a mountain of evidence" for A!=B the probability is that it is true and that the initial proposition is false. Unfortunately, we cannot draw any other inference from this without additional propositions and data, not even that the "sea is mainly water" let alone that "the sea is salt water."
[Lucifer] I would question the meaning of this assertion before I spent to much time gathering evidence. Do you mean "the sea contains water"? I'm sure you know about E-prime and why it was invented.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #37 on: 2009-12-20 11:32:20 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-20 01:59:14
[Lucifer] I would question the meaning of this assertion before I spent to much time gathering evidence. Do you mean "the sea contains water"? I'm sure you know about E-prime and why it was invented.
|
uh oh..you did NOT!
somewhere, KMO is laughing.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #38 on: 2009-12-20 12:08:28 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-19 12:57:51 my point is that, your beliefs are true only to YOU based on your evidence and your experience. just as a fundie xian cant go about stuffing his opinion about creationism on impressionable children, a scientific minded rational person cannot go about trashing "astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui" without evidence or having experienced it themselves.
|
Actually I agree that beliefs should be based on evidence and that applies equally to fundie xians and scientists. Personal experience is just another form of evidence, specifically anecdotal evidence. I realize that personal experience is often weighted more heavily, but that is a bias that should be compensated for. No one should go about trashing astrology, tarot, or anything else without evidence, we can agree on that point. But of course there is a mountain of scientific evidence that astrology and the other new age disciplines don't work any better than chance. For example if astrology was true then people born on the same date would have similar lives compared to people born on different dates, but that is objectively not true.
|
|
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.84
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #39 on: 2009-12-20 14:23:17 » |
|
Rip me a new one, but somehow for me, this fits here
Cheers
Fritz
Phillip Larkin
Continuing To Live
Continuing to live -- that is, repeat
A habit formed to get necessaries --
Is nearly always losing, or going without.
It varies.
This loss of interest, hair, and enterprise --
Ah, if the game were poker, yes,
You might discard them, draw a full house!
But it's chess.
And once you have walked the length of your mind, what
You command is clear as a lading-list.
Anything else must not, for you, be thought
To exist.
And what's the profit? Only that, in time,
We half-identify the blind impress
All our behavings bear, may trace it home.
But to confess,
On that green evening when our death begins,
Just what it was, is hardly satisfying,
Since it applied only to one man once,
And that one dying.
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #40 on: 2009-12-20 16:13:22 » |
|
anectodal evidence is biased, i agree. but if you are going to take someone's(say dawkins) word that astrology is bunk, how different is it from taking someone's word that astrology predicts the future?
the kind of astrology(sun signs) you mention is iffy, i agree, but the one i studied that is called sidereal astrology is entirely different. in some of the case studies(which were, of course, the charts of my cousins..oh well), even twins did not share the same fate. also predicting how one's day will fare is not the point...it is used more for matrimonial compatilbility, predictions based on planetary cycles, very general predictions based on moon phases, eclipses etc. because the rising ascendent is important, the date alone is not sufficient..one needs time and place of birth. astrology is also used to determine auspicious dates and times for farmers to plant and sow. the newspaper variety of astrology is nothing more than entertainment.
***
eta: in a couple of cases, we even found that accuracy was shaky in charts where the child was conceived in a different country and was born in india. of course, there were only two charts that seemed to share this pattern and this, of course, is by no means a 'study'. but it was an observation and a fledgling theory. my point is that astrology does not claim to be accurate and that he knows all. there is a great void of the unknown that humbles every student..as it should..be it astrology or physics.
***
the ignorance on the part of the critics about the subtelities, refinements, intricacies and nature of different kinds of astrology is exactly why those who havent studied it shouldnt make judgements. it is not about anecdotal evidence. it is a fundamental sin against rational discourse. if they do, they are merely parroting louder voices. which is hardly a scientific state of mind.
the 'mountain of evidence' you claim is the overzealousness of scientists and rationalists to stamp out what they deem superstition. a noble intention, no doubt. but what about those who take those words and follow them as if it were gospel. xianity, science, zionism, marxism...these are all religions of different stripes.
i am going to bring up the topic of vaccines again...i am completely against flu vaccinations and those like gardasil..even the one against chickenpox, but there is a 'mountain of evidence' that polio and smallpox vaccines are beneficial. ditto with homeopathy...as i have mentioned before, i do have very high regard for homeopathy. but if a homeopath suggests that i not visit a dentist for tooth cavities or if he makes a general statement that he can cure cancer, i would think that such a character is suspect....regardless of whether homeopathy is valid or not.
tarot, homeopathy, astrology are disciplines...tools.. those who wield them are humans. superstition emerges from the gullible. not these disciplines. its like calling books and writing and words evil because it makes people who read them think and act. would you call books evil? remember who likes to burn them?
to discern, decide and not throw away the baby with the bathwater is my appeal.
***
eta: i dont know where we are going, but i just want to say that my vote is still dogma.
***
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-20 12:08:28
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-19 12:57:51 my point is that, your beliefs are true only to YOU based on your evidence and your experience. just as a fundie xian cant go about stuffing his opinion about creationism on impressionable children, a scientific minded rational person cannot go about trashing "astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui" without evidence or having experienced it themselves.
|
Actually I agree that beliefs should be based on evidence and that applies equally to fundie xians and scientists. Personal experience is just another form of evidence, specifically anecdotal evidence. I realize that personal experience is often weighted more heavily, but that is a bias that should be compensated for. No one should go about trashing astrology, tarot, or anything else without evidence, we can agree on that point. But of course there is a mountain of scientific evidence that astrology and the other new age disciplines don't work any better than chance. For example if astrology was true then people born on the same date would have similar lives compared to people born on different dates, but that is objectively not true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #41 on: 2009-12-21 00:51:21 » |
|
[Lucifer] Yada, yada
[Hermit] Let go of the details of the examples already and recognize the fundamental logic underneath it. Just because A implies B does not mean that ~A implies ~B any more than ~B implies ~A or even that B implies A. Once the evidence has falsified A, no matter what your evidence says about A, it does not, cannot speak to B even if it addresses B separately (for example in your numeric example had you also dealt with the case of equality then because, in addition to your evidence about A, you also know that B is a member of the set of {B<A, B=A ,B>A} and if you prove that two of the values for B are invalid then you may validly infer that B must take the third value, but that is because you have independent information about the nature of B which goes beyond the evidence about A.)
[Lucifer] No one should go about trashing astrology, tarot, or anything else without evidence,
[Hermit] This is GW Bush grade logic. How about Saddam's nuclear weapons, ready to be launched on Europe with 45 minutes notice? How was he supposed to prove that these figments of malicious American invention were not real? Now about those fairies on my garden wall? Or about the IPU and the FSM? What can mountains of evidence about anything ever say to these figments? They are not real so all your evidence can address might be aspects of what is asserted for them, if that. If it does, you might catch them in a contradiction (like her infinite pinkness) but that leaves you trying to deal with the pre-emptive counter-assertion that the IPU is, like most females, contrary in nature, and it is part of her special mystery and allure that she embraces contradiction, and thus your evidence strengthens the supposition that she is in fact immensely more significant than your futile logic which cannot embrace such awe inspiring oneness.
[Lucifer] Personal experience is just another form of evidence, specifically anecdotal evidence.
[Hermit] Unless there is external physical evidence and a contemporaneous recording, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless, because, as, inter alia, any half-way competent lawyer knows and often can prove, the human mind is almost infinitely fallible. Deliberate fraud is even more difficult to address.
[Hermit] Nothing for which there is no evidence compelling its acceptance and mechanism through which it operates can be invalidated. Outside of a trivial theoretical system, nothing which cannot be invalidated can speak to any substantial issue. No matter how much usefulness may be ascribed to such things, they remain in the realm of the phantasmagorical and do not require evidence to be ignored. If evidence is lead or adduced which requires addressing, e.g. consistent attainment of outcomes significantly greater than can be expected through chance, then is time enough to develop hypothesis and to attempt to invalidate them.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #42 on: 2009-12-21 01:44:57 » |
|
[Mermaid] <snip>lunacy</snip>
[Mermaid] tarot, homeopathy, astrology are disciplines...tools.. those who wield them are humans. superstition emerges from the gullible. not these disciplines. its like calling books and writing and words evil because it makes people who read them think and act. would you call books evil? remember who likes to burn them?
[Mermaid] <snip>drivel</snip>
[Hermit] Books do not do anything, good or evil. As such, books on such delusional matters are merely worthless. Nobody speaks of evil when gullible will suffice. It is only when such gullibility leads to harm, like people who cannot afford it paying fortunes for useless magic stones and quack treatments, like women dying of easily prevented tumours because they were not inoculated against endemic disease leading to cervical cancer, or people dying unnecessarily because they do not have a sufficient immune response to a preventable disease, or even a population suffering a pandemic due to having had sufficient unprotected people to act as hosts in which pathogens could evolve, that the outcome may be evil, but the harm is usually unintentional, and so those responsible are more accurately described as banally stupid irrespective of outcome.
[Hermit] A counter argument may be raised, that wasted resources are not always harmful and there are too many people on the planet already, and when this is proffered, rather than dumb ignorance (no matter how voluble), it successfully aspires to evil, if evil is described as inflicting intentional harm on self, family, tribe and species.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #43 on: 2009-12-21 02:12:29 » |
|
hermit, you are the frog that sits in the well and imagines that the well is the entire universe. its a pity because you will never learn anything more than what's within the circle inside which you have imprisoned yourself.
gullible people are led to harm by politicians, self professed experts, magicians and astrologers. why should an unexplored, unproven discipline be trashed because of lack of evidence.... because the gullible are willing to part with their fortunes. can you hear the deafening thunder of your logic fart here?
people die all the time. i have never claimed that cervical cancer vaccine should be banned or that it is ineffective. i have only suggested that those who choose to not vaccinate themselves should have the freedom to have control over their bodies and health. you wouldnt understand. you are not a woman. fuck off, please.
if you still want to flap your lips....talk about the mandatory/predatory circumcision of male children that is supposed to protect their future bedmates from..yes..cervical cancer. you know..that which has the blessings of the medical community..doctors, researchers and scientists.
somehow i suspect that you didnt trip over yourself to get yourself circumcised when 'definitive' studies declared that a circumcised penis protects women from cervical cancer.
Quote from: Hermit on 2009-12-21 01:44:57 [Mermaid] <snip>lunacy</snip>
[Mermaid] tarot, homeopathy, astrology are disciplines...tools.. those who wield them are humans. superstition emerges from the gullible. not these disciplines. its like calling books and writing and words evil because it makes people who read them think and act. would you call books evil? remember who likes to burn them?
[Mermaid] <snip>drivel</snip>
[Hermit] Books do not do anything, good or evil. As such, books on such delusional matters are merely worthless. Nobody speaks of evil when gullible will suffice. It is only when such gullibility leads to harm, like people who cannot afford it paying fortunes for useless magic stones and quack treatments, like women dying of easily prevented tumours because they were not inoculated against endemic disease leading to cervical cancer, and people die because a population has sufficient unprotected people to act as host in which pathogens may evolve, that the outcome may be evil, but the harm is usually unintentional, and so those responsible are more accurately described as banally stupid irrespective of outcome.
[Hermit] A counter argument may be raised, that wasted resources are not always harmful and there are too many people on the planet already, and when this is proffered, rather than dumb ignorance (no matter how voluble), it successfully aspires to evil, if evil is describes as inflicting intentional harm on self, family, tribe and species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #44 on: 2009-12-21 02:18:22 » |
|
somehow i feel that the world has much to fear from big pharma than from the 'international association of magicians out to part the gullible from their fortunes'.
the current state of affairs sometimes makes me want to seek solace with a witchdoctor than inside a walgreens pharmacy.
who is milking the gullible dry.
think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
