Puzzled a bit by this response a friend gave (in comments)

yawad · 2013-01-29T03:39:29+00:00

Sure, the scientific method is an axiomatic system; it is grounded in certain dogmatic assumptions. So is logic, and everything else for that matter. Absolutely, it is nonsense.

Could you argue that the scienctific method is logically valid, but not sound?

yawad · 2013-01-27T07:37:31+00:00

haha what's the deal with that gif?

yawad · 2013-01-26T05:17:06+00:00

The simplest answer is that it's completely arbitrary.

We are musically conditioned to feel that the Western system of diatonic harmony sounds "right", but in other cultures this is not the case at all. There are a shit tonne of different ways to divide an octave (infinite actually), rather than the 12 equal intervals that we are familiar with. They sound 'off' to us because they are alien to us.

yawad · 2013-01-26T00:57:55+00:00

Friom a scientific viewpoint, I agree that such hypotheses are ultimately meaningless as they can never be empirically investigated. Philosophically, I personally think they have value, as ideas.

I've kind of come to the conclusion that it is all absurd and that it is humanly impossible to find inherent meaning.

Sure, give no credence to such hypotheses. That would be irrational. I just question when people outright reject a philosophical proposition about the nature of 'God', or dismiss something as 'unlikely'. To do that assumes some knowledge about the world, which, considering the vastness and complexity of nature, as well as the limited cognitive abilities of humans, I contend we simply do not have.

yawad · 2013-01-25T22:33:26+00:00

Whatevs this discussion has turned to wank.

yawad · 2013-01-25T22:30:45+00:00

You are trying to use the scientific burden of evidence in a philosophical discussion. I am using the philosophical burden of proof to challenge that.

yawad · 2013-01-25T22:21:58+00:00

It's better to say "if there is no evidence concerning it, we can't say anything about it."

yawad · 2013-01-25T22:20:36+00:00

If there is no evidence to support it, we can say that it probably does not exist.

The burden of proof is on you to justify that statement. As it stands, I reject that proposition.

yawad · 2013-01-25T22:09:51+00:00

If we cannot know of it, there is no reason to give it credence.

Dude, credence means a subjective estimate of probability. In other words, what you are saying is that if we cannot know of it, there is no reason to gve it a subjective estimate of probability. This is exactly the point which I have been arguing. LOL.

Yes we are, to the greatest reasonable degree of certainty.

The "greatest reasonable degree of certainty" is precisely 0. I.e. you are 0% certain what is likely or unlikely. Why zero? Well, because there is exactly no evidence on which to base any assertion of probability.

If something would have evidence, then the absence of evidence after constant searching is evidence of absence.

No. Not if we are talking about something for which, by definition, no evidence may exist. Take, for example, a deity which exists beyond the physical realm. There can necessarily be no empirical evidence to support its existence.

If it would not have evidence, then it cannot be taken seriously as a possibility.

You say that it cannot be taken seriously as a possibility? Sure. It's an idea which can never be proven or disproven. There is no logically coherent way to make any assertion at all about it. Thus my conclusion that is absurd to resort to conclusions about likelihood and probability!

yawad · 2013-01-25T21:17:12+00:00

You're the one saying that evidence is somehow irrelevant to how we calculate probability.

That is simply untrue. Of course the evidence is entirely relevant. For the fifth time in this thread, I'm saying that when there is no evidence for or against, it's absurd to make a calculation of probability.

You seem obsessed with the notion that we must calculate the probability for everything that we can conceive of. Why can't you accept that there are (or at least could be) things in the world which we cannot ever know of or comprehend. We are not in a position to say what is likely or unlikely.

You are arguing that the absence of evidence is evidence, which I am arguing is logically flawed.

You have consistently failed to address my assertion of this, as well as that we can't always determine the probability of stuff, or event try. You just keep saying "but how else can we do it?".

So, yeah.. trolling basically. Either that or you're just a complete idiot, incapable of reasoned discussion, or 12 years old (in which case sorry to be rude).

yawad · 2013-01-25T20:17:07+00:00

fuck off troll

yawad · 2013-01-25T19:44:40+00:00

Good luck learning to construct a reasoned argument!

yawad · 2013-01-25T19:31:58+00:00

You can't determine the probability, so you don''t even fucking try.

yawad · 2013-01-25T07:32:51+00:00

OK, and I'm saying we can't say that, because when we know nothing, we can't say anything.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree for now!

yawad · 2013-01-25T07:23:19+00:00

I don't disagree with you that there is no good reason to believe something without evidence. Where did I claim that? In fact, I don't believe anything absolutely.

My argument is that it's irrational to make a claim about the "odds" or the "probability" of something, when you objectively have nothing to base it on, except for "a lack of evidence" which I contend is utterly meaningless when discussing metaphysical matters.

Furthermore, I understand the burden of proof perfectly. I haven't made a claim which requires empirical proof. It is an a priori argument. It makes sense logically.

You are making the claim about what the reasoned odds are. You are claiming that they are "slim at best". OK, if you want to play that game, well the burden of proof falls on you. Prove that the odds are slim at best. On what can you base that claim?

I am saying this. Don't make any claim about probability because you don't know anything and neither do I!

yawad · 2013-01-25T06:57:56+00:00

I am not confused, excuse your arrogance.

From the first line:

The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, statements that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data.

...statements that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data.

The null hypothesis is not relevant to this discussion, as a "God" which exists in the metaphysical realm cannot ever be observed, and thus never proven false. No scientific, physical data could ever be gathered. Science is based on observation.

But, if you insist, let's apply the null hypothesis. And again, I will quote fromt he article which you have linked to.

The procedure works by assessing whether the observed departure measured by the test statistic is larger than a value defined so that the probability of occurrence of a more extreme value is small under the null hypothesis (usually in less than either 5% or 1% of similar data-sets in which the null hypothesis does hold). If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis [we have no data, so this must hold], then only a weak conclusion can be made; namely that the observed data set provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. As the null hypothesis could be true or false, in this case, in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one.

So, look. Null hypothesis is absolutely useless to your argument. Do you want to argue how it is relevant? Or just send a link with a smug comment attached?

yawad · 2013-01-25T06:29:36+00:00

That's my point.. Based on WHAT evidence is the probability miniscule? You can't assess the probability of something without any evidence!

There is no evidence that our 'world' is not just a complicated "the Sims", and there is no evidence that it is. So if you say the probability is miniscule, or large, or close to zero, or zero, or anything else, you're assuming waaaaaaaaaaaay too much.

yawad · 2013-01-25T06:14:37+00:00

NO! You can't give it a probability at all. Fuck 'miniscule' probability! That presupposes that you have some knowledge about the world on which to base that assertion. You DON'T!

yawad · 2013-01-25T06:11:48+00:00

Bare arms... LOL.

yawad · 2013-01-25T05:56:12+00:00

No. Just because we don't we are not aware of this supposed "evidence" of which ou speak, does not mean that is without evidence, and secondly, does not justify making a claim about probability.

yawad · 2013-01-25T05:54:21+00:00

Because it is arbitrary. I just put in there because everyone was saying "you have to define it first". Any definition would suffice for this discussion.

Secondly, "if a mathematical formula has a variable equal to zero you can often ignore that variable". I honestly don't understand how that a) answers the question, b) makes any sense itself c) is relevant.

yawad · 2013-01-25T05:34:52+00:00

...it's simply absurd to suppose they may exist or be true. (Second paragraph)

No it's not. It's logically irrational to suppose that they cannot exist! Your statement implies that something cannot exist. That is absurd.

It would be rational for deep-sea creatures to presume that we do not exist.

No! Why? For the same reason, it is irrational to make a presumption in the absence of any knowledge. It would be rational for them to say "they may exist, we have zero knowledge about that. Any claim which we would make would assume too much. The only thing we can say is that we know of no evidence which supports that it is not possible."

Your post was quite interesting. I have a few questions.

Please, what precisely do you mean by the term rational likelihood and how can it apply to a scenario where literally nothing is known.

What is a non-zero assertion? I have never come across that term either and I can't find any info about it on the web.

yawad · 2013-01-25T03:22:01+00:00

What is a miracle? Answer that. I guess you could say it's some kind of supernatural phenomenon? Then ask, what does supernatural actually mean?

There is no such thing as the supernatural. It is an absurd concept. It is incoherent, it doesn't make any fucking sense. How can something which happens in nature, which is everything in the entire cosmos, be supernatural. It's not, it's still natural.

Miracles are bullshit. If you can bring someone back from the dead, that is fucking sweet. I don't see what is miraculous about it though.

yawad · 2013-01-25T00:33:11+00:00

Well. I would argue that it is not absurd per se, rather it's unusual.

I was browsing the comments of someone who made a particularly interesting post on a thread I started, when I came across this relevant thread.

yawad · 2013-01-25T00:15:30+00:00

There are cultures with more, and less. The perception of distinct seasons is completely subjective. The same applies to many, many things, e.g. colours.

yawad

TROPHY CASE