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”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@ phoodoo
This reminds me of discussions I’ve had with the late Professor John A. Davison. He disputed the mechanisms proposed in the ToE. He, however, proposed an alternative that he called his semi-meiotic theory (a variety of saltation). The weakness in his idea was how to get the rapid changes he proposed to be in lockstep with the niche where the organism was found. ToE covers this by proposing the niche as designer. Kills two birds with one stone! Occam’s razor!
But you are no John Davison, phoodoo.
fifthmonarchyman,
Do what you like. I’m not Patrick.
phoodoo,
I have not actually been asked to. But I’d be rather amazed that you needed the thing you spend many waking hours attacking ‘revealing’ to you.
Denial? Denial of what?
If I meet Dave on the road who claims to be God who thus procedes to impress me with feats of great power and wisdom at what point should I declare…
How is this possibly the correct or truly skeptical conclusion to make? And yet you seem to be advocating it – to do otherwise is ‘denialism’?
At what point should a True Skeptic™ make the leap of faith from “Thou art powerful” to “Thou art the most powerful!” because I’d like to know.
the truth
I would proceed to acknowledge his deity when he convinced me that he was God to do this he would need to identify himself as the second coming of Christ probably with something like this
quote:
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
(1Th 4:16-17)
end quote:
Of course it’s not proof he is God but it would definitely convince me.
peace
Yeah, if that happened I would probably be convinced by the empirical evidence. Seeing how people bound to hell are swallowed by the earth and some others ascend to the heavens while the entire universe is destroyed by this guy who claims to be the second coming of Jesus sounds like a good enough empirical reason to believe the bible prophecy is fulfilled.
Of course those of you, like Erik, who got it wrong and claimed that there can’t be empirical evidence of God might join me in hell as a punishment for worshiping in a false God.
So whatever convinces FMM should convince everyone?
And if not they’re just not being real skeptics, or they’re hyper-skeptical, or denialists.
not at all I’ve repeatedly said that the convincing evidence will be different for each of us. I assure you I would not be convinced by the evidence that walto says would convince him. Different strokes and all that.
All that is important is that we can conceive of evidence that would convince us if not then we can’t do what Cromwell and Lizzy ask us to do.
peace
would “probably” is better than would “maybe” it’s not quite would however 😉
peace
So do you agree that it’s not true that it doesn’t make sense to ask for EMPIRICAL evidence of God?
Which ToE? There are many right?
I have no problem with asking for empirical evidence as long as we realize that empirical evidence is not the only evidence available.
IOW if you demanded that any convincing evidence be empirical I would ask you what evidence would convince you that there was more to the world than the empirical.
In that case we have just moved the same “skeptical” question over one step to the left.
peace
The one originally proposed by Charles Darwin and later developed to incorporate genetics.
There are many right what? The modern theory has evolved since Darwin’s day. The recent explosion of data from molecular phylogenetics has added a mountain of evidence for the nested hierarchy. I’m not aware of other theories of evolution. For the sake of argument, if there were other evolutionary theories that did not postulate the mechanisms of variation and selection, how would that mean that there was no theory of evolution?
Well, case closed then. Fred demands empirical evidence, there’s none. Skeptics are justified in not believing. Period. Thanks for playing
What you call evidence is irrelevant. Your lowering the bar for evidence is tantamount to Wood’s turning the skeptometer all the way down. So low that you’re not a skeptic anymore and become a presupositionalist
That’s obviously an impossibility. If one demands for empirical evidence and what you propose is out of reach of empirical evidence, then there’s nothing that would do it, by definition. The thing is that you don’t have anything. No empirical evidence, no deductive evidence, no nothing
I think Frankie wanted to make such an argument, but you refused to publish his OP. Am I right?
Perhaps I’ll have to show Frankie how it’s done. 🙂
If someone were to claim that no one can state or provide a link to “the theory of abiogenesis” or to “the theory of the origin of life” would that also be daft?
You see Alan, which ToE. There are many theories of evolution.
Which one is THE theory of evolution?
Not really. There are several competing hypotheses regarding how life might have got started on Earth. The problem is there is no direct evidence that enables us to decide which if any is the more correct, which would then move that hypothesis to the status of a theory.
Well, the only theory of evolution I’m familiar with is the one proposed by Darwin and later developed to incorporate genetics. Do you know of other theories of evolution?
Is supporting evidence a necessary component of a theory?
dazz,
I would say so.
And there are several competing hypotheses regarding how various life forms might have evolved once life got started on Earth.
Evolved did you say? no!, there’s no theory of evolution!
Being unwilling (or unable) to provide in the advance the conditions under which one would come to believe X is not equivalent to thinking one cannot be wrong.
Remember it’s not the skeptics touting ‘the impossibility of the contrary’; it’s your lot.
It’s close to the equivalent. What you are saying is somthing like this
“I may be wrong then again I may be a ham sandwich anything is possible.”
Technically it’s a correct statement but it’s intellectually vacuous.
I have no problem with ‘the impossibility of the contrary’.
What I have a problem with is claiming it’s possible but inconceivable at the same time. That is simply a Frediean dodge
peace
What you keep missing is that the evidence must follow from logical entailments of the object. That’s a must. Rejecting that and accepting an entirely subjective, arbitrary criteria of “evidence” means rejecting skepticism altogether.
I have no problem with that.
On the other hand I do have a problem with claiming that there are no logical entailments of an object and at the same time demanding evidence and claiming to be skeptical.
There are logical entailments to God’s existence. For me those entailments include things like the possibility of knowledge.
For you they might include something else.
The point is that in order for you to be skeptical of something’s existence you need to be able to conceive of those logical entailments.
If you can’t conceive of logical entailments you are not a skeptic about it’s existence you are just simply ignorant. Like I am for the existence of xocotumicanitcs.
peace
Mung,
Well, you see it used to be one, then it was another, now its the one that is the most right now, or if another is also right, then its that one.
Basically the theory is the theory, but the theory can change and still be the theory-but don’t be confused by calling the ones before “the theory”, although though they are the theory, just a different theory. Look, I don’t think we should get all caught up in saying what the theory is, this has obviously been well documented, in fact if you look up on google you can find many theories-that is the theory.
Do you think there is no such thing as a theory, is that what you are saying? Because many people have proposed theories, so how can you say there is no theory? Which theory do you think doesn’t exist?
For you? no, you still don’t get it. It’s irrelevant what you think are logical entailments. Those should be objective and possible to derive from the object by anyone.
If you want to presuppose that God is necessary for knowledge that’s none of the skeptic’s business. What evidence do you have that knowledge requires God? None at all. Only presuppositions. Question is, can there be objective evidence for such a claim? I don’t think so. So once again what you’re demanding from the skeptic is to reject skepticism to remain a skeptic. You’re demanding square circles. It’s not my fault that you can’t understand that
Newton’s gravity… Einstein’s gravity, there’s no gravitational theory in phoodoo’s world.
this is simply incorrect. If you think that knowledge is possible with out God tell me how you know stuff.
You know the bot you like so much
Your continued inability to do so is evidence whether you like it or not
peace
We’ve already been through this and you embarrassed yourself mightly with your continuous logic fails
I’m very skeptical of that claim 😉
I would be convinced that I’m wrong if you could provide me some evidence that evidence is possible with out God. You can do that by simply telling me how you know stuff in your worldview.
see this is not hard
peace
I already did and won’t go back there. If you remember I said I would ignore you in that regard. You’ll claim victory as the dimwit you are but your argument was circular whether you want to admit it or not
Where did you get this idea. I’m not asking you to reject skepticism I’m asking you to show that you are in fact a skeptic and not simply in denial.
peace
dazz,
Which is the theory of gravity-Einsteins or Newton’s?
So you are unwilling to provide any evidence for your claim.
In such a case I simply have no option other than to reject it and remain skeptical.
Correct?
Got it
peace
Are you a troll or simply retarded?
dazz you were again doing so well.
Why do you resort to this tactic every time you get frustrated? Not everything is going to go your way every time
It’s OK to reach an impasse with out resorting to petty insults. Stomping your feet and throwing a fit is not a productive way to resolve our differences.
You need to learn to play well with others if you are going to get along in a diverse world where everyone does not agree with you.
peace
I’d really like to see an argument that there’s such a thing as “non-empirical evidence” or “evidence of the non-empirical”. It just looks like grave confusion to me.
Think of it this way: the function of evidence is to increase the likelihood of a hypothesis.
(One need not accept Bayes’ theorem as the only way to think about these issues, though speaking as someone who has a weak grasp of statistics and probability theory, I find Bayes’ theorem very useful.)
But that’s just not how deductively valid arguments work. A valid proof that there is no largest prime does not increase the likelihood that there is no largest prime; it demonstrates that there is no largest prime. The proof exhibits the impossibility of a largest prime.
Likewise: the correlation between human-related agricultural and industrial activities, esp the combustion of fossil fuels, with rising carbon dioxide levels is evidence that supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. But it does not establish the necessity of the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change (nor the impossibility of non-anthropogenic climate change). Nothing could do that.
For there to be “non-empirical evidence,” there would need to be something that has the epistemic status appropriate for increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a hypothesis but which doesn’t involve using measurements to assign intensive or extensive magnitudes to spatio-temporal locations or intervals.
I’d love to see an example of that.
And the same could be said of someone who insists that no one is an atheist and everyone knows that God exists.
You’re in no position to be offering free advice about how to play well with others. Try learning how to play well with others yourself before admonishing others for their failures.
Interesting. So you feel that a valid demonstration of impossibility of X does not decrease the likelihood of X in any way. Could you elaborate on that?
It seems to me that if think X exists such a demonstration would tend to convince me that X does not exist.
What am I missing?
peace
I don’t recall calling folks who insist that they are atheists retards or trolls.
I simply express what I know when it comes up and then I move on to other things. If pressed I even explain why I say what I say in a syllogism
Premise one: You know that truth exists
Premise two: God is truth
Conclusion: therefore You know God exists
I don’t demand you accept my syllogism. I just share it and move on
Is that wrong for some reason?
peace
A valid proof that there is no largest prime increases the likelihood that an arbitrary odd integer above a googolplex to the googolplex power is a prime. Because of the proof you know that there are primes above any number you name, since primes never end, thus there is some chance that an arbitrary odd number above any finite point is prime.
I think that’s evidence. I think that knowledge of where a spacecraft will be at a given time is best arrived at using both empiric evidence (you have to know the beginning conditions, of course) and mathematic calculation (based on evidence supplied by proofs, etc.) , making the most of empiric evidence by also using mathematic evidence.
That said, it’s one thing to say that I think there is non-empiric evidence, it would be quite different if I said that I think that any entity or object can legitimately be said to exist entirely without reliance upon empiric evidence (using just math/logic). At least I can’t see how it could be.
Glen Davidson
He doesn’t play (discuss) with others, he preaches at them using his ignorant presuppositions.
Glen Davidson
Fifth:
Click…whirrr…ticka ticka ticka ticka…*spoink*:
“You can do that by simply telling me how you know stuff in your worldview.”
Reciprocating Bill:
Click…whirrr…ticka ticka ticka ticka…*spoink*:
Yes.
The main problem here, is that you do not understand “theory” as it is used in the sciences.
A theory is not a hypothesis. A theory need not have a clear statement.
The important thing about a theory, is that it guides scientific practice and supports theoretical study (as in the kind of modeling that Joe F. does).
A logically valid proof that X is impossible does not lower the probability that X is true. Evidence that decreases the likelihood of X is still consistent with the claim that X is true in some possible world. A logically valid proof that X is impossible means that X is false in all possible worlds.
Mung,
I’m willing to bet that there is more than one locality on this thing they call ‘the internet’. Indeed, if one really wanted to see Frankie’s OP, one could probably find it word for word on – say – ‘Intelligent Reasoning’, the blog of ID poltroon Joe Gallien. Write once, paste a thousand times, that’s the ticket. How dare anyone halt the tide of spam.