Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

This video from David Wood seems to be pertinent to almost every discussion that takes place here. Perhaps it should be required viewing to any who would participate in this forum.

What do you think?

check it out.

https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg

 

peace

791 thoughts on “Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

  1. Alan Fox: If you mean am I really skeptical of “Intelligent Design” as a genuine scientific endeavour – then – of course. The sole argument appears to be “evolution sucks therefore design!”

    no I mean

    Is there any evidence that you can conceive of that would convince you that life or the universe exhibits Intelligent Design?

    any arguments put forward by the proponents of ID are entirely beside the point

    Alan Fox: Does Wood present his argument in written form?

    As walto points out it the video contains nothing new. It’s not even an argument it’s more of an observation. The fact is many people use skepticism as a tool to deny rather than discover the truth, All the video does is cleverly point out the sillyness of this approach in an entertaining way

    Alan Fox: Are you sure you can fit anyone into one or other category?

    Pretty sure, you are either being skeptical to discover or deny the truth. I’m not sure how you could ever straddle that fence

    peace

  2. Patrick:

    Try addressing my actual points this time.

    He can’t, so he won’t. His only apparent option is tilt at straw skeptics…

  3. fifthmonarchyman: Is there any evidence that you can conceive of that would convince you that life or the universe exhibits Intelligent Design?

    I already said yes to this.

    any arguments put forward by the proponents of ID are entirely beside the point

    Indeed! And irrelevant. It wasn’t me who brought the “ID” club up.

  4. fifthmonarchyman:

    Demand for a definition is not the same thing as conceiving of evidence that would convince you that you are wrong.

    LOL! Except that reasonable, true skeptics can’t do the latter without the former.

  5. fifthmonarchyman: Pretty sure, you are either being skeptical to discover or deny the truth. I’m not sure how you could ever straddle that fence

    Nonsense. I’m rarely sure what the truth might be. I’m not rarely convinced anyone else does either.

    ETA Oops duplicate part of comment deleted!

  6. I’m still curious how attribution works. Given some event that appears to be miraculous, how is it possible to attribute a perpetrator?

  7. fifthmonarchyman:

    Already answered above:

    If you think so we are at an impasse.

    Only if you continue to refuse to engage with the actual points being made.

    Demand for a definition is not the same thing as conceiving of evidence that would convince you that you are wrong.

    An operational definition is required in order to determine what evidence is possible. Without it, as noted previously, the words you are using are literally meaningless.

    So I repeat: “If you provide an operational definition of either of those, including the entailments were such to exist then (assuming the association with the entailments is valid) observing the entailments would provide support for the claim that faeries or gods, as defined, exist.

    If you cannot provide such a definition and entailments then the problem is with your concepts not with those who lack belief in them.”

  8. fifthmonarchyman: Off the top of my head I think I would be convinced of the existence of Flebderkamps if I witnessed a being from another planet who looked liked me who knew what I was thinking at many times and under various different circumstances

    Wow, that was a terrible attempt. Lots of people know what you’re thinking sometimes, don’t they? (And how the hell do you know whether somebody is “from another planet” if they look like us–inside and out?)

    Better try again. Maybe take more than five seconds this time.

  9. walto: Wow, that was a terrible attempt.Lots of people know what you’re thinking sometimes, don’t they? (And how the hell do you know whether somebody is “from another planet” if they look like us–inside and out?)

    Better try again.Maybe take more than five seconds this time.

    It could make a difference if some know quite exactly what one thinks occasionally, rather than generally knowing. Of course then you might want to know how specific, but very exact numbers (correct 6 or more digit numbers repeatedly) that someone is thinking might be a good indication of mind reading.

    Glen Davidson

  10. I do think that this particular exercise is rather moot. Assuming someone could come up with some succinct evidence that would convince him or her that God existed, such would immediately make said version of God = not-God. The very first principle nearly all theistic approaches to god(s) is that the acceptance and following of such requires faith. Faith in something fundamentally good – the basis of good – beyond this world and, more importantly, the continuation of life beyond this life. Any test of that would be, by definition, a contradiction in terms. You can’t test God after all.

    So for me, I can’t come up with any evidence that could even indirectly indicate the existence of any god because by my understanding the very basis of God’s existence is that there is no evidence of such.

  11. Alan Fox: I’m rarely sure what the truth might be.

    You seem to be pretty convinced of the truth of your claim that “the theory of evolution” actually exists, somewhere.

  12. How many theists are convinced of God’s existence by arguments or evidence anyway? the vast majority of them were indoctrinated at an early age.

  13. dazz:
    Flebderkamps only read minds when they feel like to

    Right, that’s a problem for disconfirmations. Like God being hard-to-predict or engaging in Maya. When there’s apparent evil, some theist is always sure there’s some countervailing issue we don’t or can’t know about. Flebderkamps are analogously difficult to pin down. Not just old school, Old Testament school.

  14. walto: Right, that’s a problem for disconfirmations. Like God being hard-to-predict or engaging in Maya. When there’s apparent evil, some theist is always sure there’s some countervailing issue we don’t or can’t know about.Flebderkamps are analogously difficult to pin down.Not just old school, Old Testament school.

    Word has it Trump plans on waterboarding immigrants till they confess to be Flebderkamps. People from other planets are immigrants after all

  15. Mung: You seem to be pretty convinced of the truth of your claim that “the theory of evolution” actually exists, somewhere.

    Charles Darwin gave the first published account of it in his book, On the Origin of Species. It’s available on line. I think I may have already mentioned this. Do you think otherwise. If so, why?

  16. Mung: Because theories of evolution existed before Darwin. Darwin just added another one.

    So Mung thinks that there has been no theory of evolution, but that Darwin’s theory was not the first of them?

    Or does Mung think that the theory used to exist, but disappeared?

  17. Perhaps someone could tell us what the theory of gravity is, or the theory of thermodynamics, or the theory of momentum, or the theory of chemical bonds.

    You know, theories that explain stuff in the real sciences.

  18. Joe Felsenstein: Or does Mung think that the theory used to exist, but disappeared?

    It’s no doubt based on the use of the word “the” as in “the one and only theory”. Or some such trivial trifle.

    You seem to be pretty convinced of the truth of your claim that “the theory of evolution” actually exists

  19. walto: Right, that’s a problem for disconfirmations.

    There is no go way to rule out the assistance of Flebderkamps but that is not an issue for this topic.

    We are not looking for disconfirmations but for evidence that would convince us of their existence. Flebderkamps could exist alongside us indefinitely and we would never know it But there is evidence that would convince me.

    peace

  20. walto: Wow, that was a terrible attempt. Lots of people know what you’re thinking sometimes, don’t they? (And how the hell do you know whether somebody is “from another planet” if they look like us–inside and out?)

    That is why I specified many times, and determining if someone was from another planet is something that will need to be worked out

    As I have said any evidence will require qualification and specification. Experiments don’t emerge fully formed they need to be fleshed out. The important thing is being able to conceive of evidence that would convince you that you are wrong. Not the quality of our initial attempt

    peace

  21. Robin: So for me, I can’t come up with any evidence that could even indirectly indicate the existence of any god because by my understanding the very basis of God’s existence is that there is no evidence of such.

    well there you go.
    Thanks Fred

  22. fifthmonarchyman:

    The important thing is being able to conceive of evidence that would convince you that you are wrong. Not the quality of our initial attempt

    Maybe I lack imagination, but I’m unable to conceive of any evidence that would convince me of the existence of the supernatural.

    Why should I consider carrying such a burden?

    Wait! If I were to find myself in Heaven, I would thank god (Hi god! How you doing? Is sustaining the Universe a burden or something to keep you engaged for Eternity? ) and enjoy conversations with him (or her) for as long as it’s interesting.

    And when it became boring, I’d like to sleep.

  23. fifthmonarchyman: well there you go.
    Thanks Fred

    I wonder if you understood the issue here. Apologists have been saying for millennia that their god cannot be tested, or measured in any way. And while this neatly solves the inconvenience of there being no empirical evidence for such a god, it creates the problem that there CAN BE no empirical evidence.

    So if the unbeliever demands empirical evidence of what he’s been told lies outside such evidence, he’s cursed with a closed mind. But if he says he can’t conceive of what the evidence for the unevidencable might be, he’s also cursed with a closed mind. It’s only the true believer, whose reality is closed to even the idea of evidence, whose mind is open.

  24. Joe Felsenstein: So Mung thinks that there has been no theory of evolution, but that Darwin’s theory was not the first of them?

    Or does Mung think that the theory used to exist, but disappeared?

    Theories Joe, TheorieS! Why are you using the word “the”?

  25. fifthmonarchyman: determining if someone was from another planet is something that will need to be worked out

    As I have said any evidence will require qualification and specification.

    Oh, OK Fred, got it. You’re not exactly sure what would be necessary.

  26. Pedant: Maybe I lack imagination, but I’m unable to conceive of any evidence that would convince me of the existence of the supernatural.

    There is another one.

    The numbers keep piling up.
    So far there are only 2 skeptics among all the non-theists here. I guess I should not have been surprised

    Pedant: Why should I consider carrying such a burden?

    So you can know that you are using skepticism as a tool to discover rather that deny the truth.

    peace

  27. walto: You’re not exactly sure what would be necessary.

    Of course not, this is not about certanianty or exactness it’s about being able to merely conceive of something that would convince you were wrong.

    The bar is set incredibly low here. It does not take much imagination at all to be able to think it possible that you are wrong but it does take a little

    peace

  28. fifthmonarchyman: The bar is set incredibly low here. It does not take much imagination at all to be able to think it possible that you are wrong but it does take a little

    So any random reason will do? Why?

  29. Flint: Apologists have been saying for millennia that their god cannot be tested, or measured in any way.

    I’m not an apologist but I do hang with Christians and Ive never heard such a thing coming from the folks I know.

    Flint: nd while this neatly solves the inconvenience of there being no empirical evidence for such a god, it creates the problem that there CAN BE no empirical evidence.

    Surely you know that empirical evidence is not the only kind of evidence available to you.

    How about this let’s take God out of the picture altogether to avoid any unpleasant connotations or baggage.

    Tell me if you can conceive of any evidence that would convince you that you are wrong about empirical evidence being the only evidence available to you

    peace

  30. dazz: So any random reason will do? Why?

    nope it has to be a reason that will actually convince you.

    dazz: Why?

    Because if you can’t think of such evidence you can’t think it’s possible you are wrong in any meaningful way.

    Returing to Shermer’s last law

    quote:

    Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God

    end quote:

    According to Shermer there is simply no way to determine if God exists.

    If your methodology prevents you from ever discovering the truth it’s time to get a new methodology

    peace

  31. fifthmonarchyman: nope it has to be a reason that will actually convince you.

    Because if you can’t think of such evidence you can’t think it’s possible you are wrong in any meaningful way.

    peace

    So if I told you that seeing squirrels fist-fucking koalas would convince me, that would mean that I’m a true skeptic?

  32. fifthmonarchyman: I’m not an apologist but I do hang with Christians and Ive never heard such a thing coming from the folks I know.

    And yet, Erik (a classical theist who claims god can’t be tested empirically) is your favorite here…

  33. dazz: So if I told you that seeing squirrels fist-fucking koalas would convince me, that would mean that I’m a true skeptic?

    If you weren’t lying about it.
    Walto’s evidence was almost that silly I have no way of knowing if he is actually serious but I’m willing to take him at his word.

    peace

  34. dazz: And yet, Erik (a classical theist who claims god can’t be tested empirically) is your favorite here…

    Surely you know empirical testing is not the only testing available

    peace

  35. fifthmonarchyman: Walto’s evidence was almost that silly

    Wait a minute, what determines the silliness of the reason? And if you think it’s silly, shouldn’t you point out that’s no good reason to believe?

  36. fifthmonarchyman: Surely you know empirical testing is not the only testing available

    peace

    Irrelevant to the skeptic. The classical theistic God is an a-priory. Therefore it’s not the skeptic who puts God out of reach, it’s not the skeptic’s fault that Fred has no choice but not believe in such a God

  37. dazz: Wait a minute, what determines the silliness of the reason?

    it’s purely subjective. That is why I’m willing to to give the benefit of the doubt.

    dazz: And if you think it’s silly, shouldn’t you point out that’s no good reason to believe?

    As I’ve repeatedly said I don’t think we have any control over what we believe.

    There is evidence that should compel acceptance that doesn’t and the reverse is also true.

    what is important as far as this thread is concerned is if any evidence would convince you.

    peace

  38. dazz: Therefore it’s not the skeptic who puts God out of reach,

    It’s only out of reach for Fred. A skeptic can conceive of evidence that would convince him. Just ask walto or newton if you don’t believe me

    If I was starting as a materialist skeptic the evidence for God’s existence would include evidence that something other than the empirically detectable exists

    peace

  39. fifthmonarchyman: it’s purely subjective. That is why I’m willing to to give the benefit of the doubt.

    oh yeah? So if I told you that the same thing convinces me that squirrels sometimes smell like koala’s poo, that would also be subjective? Are you saying the choice of evidence is independent from the object?

  40. fifthmonarchyman: It’s only out of reach for Fred. A skeptic can conceive of evidence that would convince him. Just ask walto or newton if you don’t believe me

    peace

    Seriously, you can’t be that dumb… or maybe you can, there’s plenty evidence

  41. dazz: Are you saying the choice of evidence is independent from the object?

    no I’m saying that what would convince you is personal and it’s not the same thing that would convince me

    peace

  42. dazz: Seriously, you can’t be that dumb… or maybe you can, there’s plenty evidence

    Come on dazz you were doing so good at having a civil conversation don’t blow it now just because you are frustrated

    peace

  43. fifthmonarchyman: no I’m saying that what would convince you is personal and it’s not the same thing that would convince me

    I’ve already said a sound logical argument would convince me so I’m not sure if I’m a skeptic and I’m not sure I care much at all

    fifthmonarchyman: Come on dazz you were doing so good at having a civil conversation don’t blow it now just because you are frustrated

    You’re asking me what evidence would convince me of the existence of something for which, by definition, no evidence can exist. Fucking brilliant

  44. dazz: I’ve already said a sound logical argument would convince me

    What would such an argument look like? Any logical argument whatsoever? how about this one?

    Premise one: all men are mortal
    Premise two: Socrates is a man
    Conclusion: Socrates is mortal

    dazz: You’re asking me what evidence would convince me of the existence of something for which, by definition, no evidence can exist.

    Of course you know that the vast majority of humanity including most scientists disagree with your definitions here

    What evidence would convince you that your hyper-materialistic definition of evidence is wrong?

    peace

  45. fifthmonarchyman: Of course you know that the vast majority of humanity including most scientists disagree with your definitions here

    Not MY definitions dumbass. It’s the definition of the classical theists. This illustrates the main point here, you can’t ask for evidence without defining your terms, and defining them in a way that evidence is possible at all.

Leave a Reply