EPTCritical Thinking and Skepticism - Page 35
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On August 01 2011 03:19 Traeon wrote: You didn't understand what I said. Absence of evidence means that, for all practical means, it will be considered false until proven otherwise. Arguing whether that means it's evidence of absence or not is just philosophic semantics and not science.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science doesn't allow you to make conclusions about things for which no data exists. If you do that, you're no longer doing science but stating beliefs and opinions. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On August 01 2011 01:16 Traeon wrote: Atheists, just like religious people, believe. This belief has no basis in science. Science isn't atheist. It doesn't tell you that no god exists. It leaves the question open because it can't answer it. Reaching for science to support your belief in atheism is the same thing as a religious person reaching to religion to support his belief. I'm probably not going to make friends posting this here but it has to be said. Attack the close-mindedness, not the clothes it is wearing. Nope. Look up "burden of proof." If you cannot answer something in any way that relies on logic, then it does not give you liberty to insert a nonsensical answer of your own (i.e. God) and act like it is a valid solution. Calling an absurd idea "absurd" is not being closed-minded; it's being rational. Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On August 01 2011 03:32 VIB wrote: Absence of evidence means that, for all practical means, it will be considered false until proven otherwise. No. There is absence of evidence that black people's lower mean IQ in apposition to other races is due to environment/nutrition/schooling/etc solely and not genetics. This claim, however, is not considered to be false/discarded simply due to the lack of evidence. There is also a lack of evidence that their lower mean IQ has a genetic component. This hypothesis is not discarded, either. I could go on, but I'm sure you get why what you said was inaccurate. A claim will be FAPP assumed false until proven otherwise if it's not perceived to be parsimonious. And no, I'm not racist in any way. It's just the first example that came to mind that relates to science. | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
On August 01 2011 03:34 matjlav wrote: Nope. Look up "burden of proof." If you cannot answer something in any way that relies on logic, then it does not give you liberty to insert a nonsensical answer of your own (i.e. God) and act like it is a valid solution. Calling an absurd idea "absurd" is not being closed-minded; it's being rational. Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. We're actually in full agreement if you reread my posts. The behavior you see in religious people, I see in some atheists as well (perhaps worse since they reach for science to validate their belief, while science can't do such a thing). | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On August 01 2011 03:36 arbitrageur wrote: No. There is absence of evidence that black people's lower mean IQ in apposition to other races is due to environment/nutrition/schooling/etc solely and not genetics. This claim, however, is not considered to be false/discarded simply due to the lack of evidence. There is also a lack of evidence that their lower mean IQ has a genetic component. This hypothesis is not discarded, either. I could go on, but I'm sure you get why what you said was inaccurate. And no, I'm not racist in any way. It's just the first example that came to mind that relates to science. There may not be concrete evidence like experiments, but we do have logical evidence to make it an educated hypothesis as opposed to an unfounded hypothesis such as god. We can point to those factors (environment/nutrition/schooling) and see how they would lead to lower IQ scores, and, most importantly, we know those factors exist. There's a difference between looking at a situation and looking at possible and observable factors that could have caused it, and looking at a situation and crafting an absurd story to explain it that has no evidence. It's like the difference between proposing that gravity is caused by a graviton particle vs. proposing that it is caused by invisible gnomes pulling masses toward each other. | ||
|
LloydRays
United States306 Posts
I believe that logically you cannot discuss evolution or religion. A set amount of both observable and non-observable perceptions can be made about both subjects. Common ancestor ideas make sense in certain areas, like primate to human because of such similar figures, and chromosome numbers etc. However, lineages such as Chirpotera (bats) advanced forms of sonar refute such things. Deist ideas such as the repetitive numerical natural phenomenon such as the Fibonacci sequence or Mandelbrot's fractal equation support their own ideas, while lack of direct observable supernatural entities refutes such things. Dawkin's meme idea really supports this divide as well. The larger each school of thought grows the more pre-determined and self destructing means in which knowledge is obtained arise from the memes created by each. In a community (biology), where you are either a lump-er or a split-er, I feel that these critical social ideas need to be lumped together. I continue to see arguments arise from cultural and societal memes divide the community that was once united under the idea of obtaining knowledge. The truth aspect of knowledge destroys the intrinsic value of all knowledge. I leave this final thought, if we are to continue to thrive, what will be a greater perspective, one that embraces the intricate differences in individual conscious? or one that rejects the aformentioned and forces a singular conscious? I will be embracing the differences, and obtaining more knowledge. Peace edit: apparently in 2004, someone found an eocene bat with underdeveloped echolocation, but bone structure capable of flight, and was published in nature around 2008; However, there are still nuances in the fossil that suggest some kind echolocating effects in its throat. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On August 01 2011 03:50 matjlav wrote: There may not be concrete evidence like experiments, but we do have logical evidence to make it an educated hypothesis as opposed to an unfounded hypothesis such as god. We can point to those factors (environment/nutrition/schooling) and see how they would lead to lower IQ scores, and, most importantly, we know those factors exist. There's a difference between looking at a situation and looking at possible and observable factors that could have caused it, and looking at a situation and crafting an absurd story to explain it that has no evidence. It's like the difference between proposing that gravity is caused by a graviton particle vs. proposing that it is caused by invisible gnomes pulling masses toward each other. I dislike this analogy at the end of your post. Gnomes being responsible for gravity is a less probable (w.r.t. truthfulness) claim than the claim that a certain theism is true. The reason is that gravity is accompanied by 3 other forces that are demonstrated to be caused by particles. We then know what is parsimonious given consideration of very similar phenomenon. We have no such comparison with the creation/start/instert-other-word-here of the universe. It is a phenomenon with nothing to compare to. If we had a primitive knowledge of physics, then yes, I would have to agree that gnomes causing gravity is just as likely as a biblical God existing. | ||
|
Mecker
Sweden219 Posts
On August 01 2011 04:03 arbitrageur wrote: I dislike this analogy at the end of your post. Gnomes being responsible for gravity is a less probable (w.r.t. truthfulness) claim than the claim that a certain theism is true. The reason is that gravity is accompanied by 3 other forces that are demonstrated to be caused by particles. We then know what is parsimonious given consideration of very similar phenomenon. We have no such comparison with the creation/start/instert-other-word-here of the universe. It is a phenomenon with nothing to compare to. If we had a primitive knowledge of physics, then yes, I would have to agree that gnomes causing gravity is just as likely as a biblical God existing. When we speak of probability we are discussing the calculable probability of something. The real truth is 100% probable since it's the truth. But since god and gnomes alike lack any amount of empirical evidence we'll conclude through reason that they are equally improbable - whilst this statement isn't true literally since probabilities don't really exist, it is sufficiently accurate to demonstrate that both ideas are unscientific. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 01 2011 03:02 Traeon wrote: Yes. I have observed how atheists of the belief system type and religious people tend to behave in similar ways. Religious people tend to look down upon those not of their religion because they consider them morally inferior or deficient. Atheist of the belief system type tend to look down upon those not of their belief system because they consider them intellectually inferior or deficient. In both cases, these two groups are equally convinced of knowing the truth they feel their behavior is justified. In both cases, the belief system becomes an extended identity. The members will proudly announce they are religious or atheists. My own personal conclusion is the belief hardly matters, the human desire to avoid uncertainty and seek security in common beliefs is what counts. Hence, religion rehashed. Ah so because people behave similarly the factual accuracy of both systems is the same ? There are many different flavors of atheism and all of them are better than any religious view as far as rational approach goes. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 01 2011 03:19 Traeon wrote: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science doesn't allow you to make conclusions about things for which no data exists. If you do that, you're no longer doing science but stating beliefs and opinions. Did you hear about Occam's razor ? That is if we consider God a hypothesis. If we consider his existence, then we are talking about facts and then you are right absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence means existence of something is highly doubtful and since god in all religions also has many attributes that mostly are impossible or improbable it is a good guess to have probability of god's existence close to zero which is good enough of a conclusion. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
Of course this is not a practical line of thought. Personally, I believe, maybe more like hope, (yes, having a bit of irrational, illogical faith) in a form of reincarnation. Why? Because it sounds comfortable to me and because I cannot imagine not-existing after I die. However, I am of course not going to tell others that they should believe the same as I do, as that would be ridiculous. I do admit that I have no base for this belief and I do not think the probability of it being true is very high, so I am still honest to myself. Maybe it isn't even belief, but just hoping it to be true. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On August 01 2011 03:46 Traeon wrote: We're actually in full agreement if you reread my posts. The behavior you see in religious people, I see in some atheists as well (perhaps worse since they reach for science to validate their belief, while science can't do such a thing). Err, no, I disagree with pretty much everything you've written. Saying "there is no God" is not inserting a nonsensical answer. It is not inserting an answer at all. It is simply the default position when not presented with any evidence to the contrary. | ||
|
AraMoOse
Canada66 Posts
If I tell you a purple dog exists and you don't believe me, is it up to you to prove to me that not a single purple dog exists in the entire universe? Or is it up to me to show you a purple dog? What about bigfoot, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns and werewolves, is it up to non believers in these things to show their non existence? What about the gods of other religions, can you prove beyond all doubt they don't exist? Should you believe in Allah and Vishnu and Shiva etc. until you can prove their non existence beyond all doubt? Or would you expect the believer wanting to convince you to provide their evidence?The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person saying an entity exists. | ||
|
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not. Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not. Why? | ||
|
noname_
459 Posts
All of us have our own asses, and nobody cares about the other`s, that`s why. Or do you? | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On August 01 2011 10:50 noname_ wrote: All of us have our own asses, and nobody cares about the other`s, that`s why. Or do you? Yup. That's why humans talk about things. Funny that. If no one cared, why would this thread have lasted for 67 pages? | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
| ||
| ||
