| Jogvanth | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | General |  |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Location: Hoyvík | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 09-04-2008 10:47 |
|
@Grizlas:
I just think Celdar has posted (much more eloquently than I could) a complete and well backed rebutal to your claims, and has proven his (and my) point very well indeed. That you don't seem to understand said point says more about your 'rational and logical' reasoning and choosing-of-facts as well as your waftfull disregard of his point due to alleged Greek-speech.
You seem to contradict yourself quite a lot in your posts.
|
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing' |
|
|
 
|
| Celdar | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | Initiate |  |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Joined: 02.08.06 | | Posted on 09-04-2008 12:03 | |
|
I don't often engage in discussion on this Forum as I often miss a day or so where I am not able to log on - when I get back the discussion has often moved on to other things. However this time I am in luck!
Firstly let me apologise for a bad typo in my last post. Grizlas is quite right, my statement at the end does not make sense. Rather than editing it I will try to restate it in this post so there are no misunderstandings.
Norlander: I agree... and if you don't mind me saying, the attitude you show in this post is a bit different from that earlier in the discussion.
What I tried to highlight was that statements such as "There is no evidence" and then point at empirical science to provide the backup for such claims is logically inconsistent and therefore can be dismissed in a rational argument. As a logical second step I tried to highlight that the discussion then becomes one about "burden of evidence" "probability of truth" etc etc. What I mean, is that it becomes subjective, i.e. exactly how much evidence you require, to believe that said unicorn was eating Torellions potatoes, is subjective to you - and whichever way you go, you will make your choice rationally based on the evidence presented to you. The discussion now becomes much more interesting!
Grizlas: I agree on your definition of rational - but insist that it can not stand alone, as it relies heavily on the base axioms you use.
My point about your inconsistency was based on my understanding of your definition of rationality. You seemed to say that anything that was not empirically provable was irrational - This to me in nonsense and irrational for the following reason.
You say that science will not make "strong conclusions" based only on "anecdotal" non empirical evidence. Ehm of course they do - when they do not have the luxury of empirical testing they certainly will - and science loooves to extrapolate.
When I say strong conclusion I mean a binary decision - Did Caser live or did he not? You can answer yes or no - what will you base your decision on? There is a total lack of empirical evidence either way so you must base it on softer evidence. I strongly believe that it is not irrational to answer yes to that question.
This is what I mean about inconsistency - if the definition of scientific is anything that is "empirically testable", then it is inconsistent to say that rational arguments and decisions must be based solely on scientific evidence.
I don't know if the point is clearer this time around... I hope so.
I think I wil leave it there unless anyone disagrees vehemently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grizlas | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | General | |
| | Group: Administrator,
Klikan,
Regulars,
Outsiders
| | Location: Denmark | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 09-04-2008 13:27 |
|
ok, I understand better now celdar, thanks for clearing this up.
Bear with me if I dont deal with your post in full as I have limited time at the moment. I just wanted to say that I agree that it is about the probability of truth, but I disagree that any decision based on any probability is rational. If you are faced with a binary decision where only soft evidence exists, then it is rational to make a soft conclusion based on that soft evidence. It would, in my mind be irrational to say that Ceasar, or Jesus for that matter existed with the same certainty as you would say that Norlander existed. That would also be bad science in my oppinion, because the conclusion is stronger than the evidence that supports it. Moreover, can't it be irrational to decide against probability? if I'm faced with a binary decision where one outcome A has a 90% chance of being true and outcome B has a 10% chance of being true, wouldn't it be irrational to say that B was true - or even to say that it was more than 10% true?
Surely there is a line somewhere with regards to how much (onesided)anecdotal evidence is required to make a rational decision? if it's 50/50 then sure, anything goes, 60/40 sure, could go either way still, but how about 1/100? still rational? My point is, that just because we are talking about the probability of truth, then it does not mean that any decision based on probability is rational.
My definition of what science is goes a bit further than just what is empirically testable, but if we use that definition I agree with your concluding statement. However, To me science is as much about the analysis of evidence (empirical or otherwise). It is about making rational deductions or inductions that lead to assumptions based upon whatever information is available, rational assumptions that are no weaker or stronger than what the evidence can support. And if defined like that, I claim that it is not rational nor scientific to use limited weak evidence to make fantastic strong conclusions. And by strong I mean with regard to the certainty of the conclusion.
ok I had more time than I thought.
|
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? |
|
|
|
|
| Jogvanth | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
| |
| | General | |
| | Group: Klikan
| | Location: Hoyvík | | Joined: 08.06.06 | | Posted on 09-04-2008 16:52 |
|
Have any of you ever seen a single individual atom, or a clear real-photograph of a single individual atom?
|
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing' |
|
|
|
|
| Norlander | RE: Human Genome pioneer finds God. |
|
|  |
| | Field Marshal | |
| | Group: Administrator,
Klikan,
Regulars,
Outsiders
| | Location: Copenhagen | | Joined: 09.06.06 | | Posted on 17-04-2008 16:51 |
|
Maher and Dawkins on unicorns, scientists and this guy.
|
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith |
|
|
|
|
