MrDarwin

This was asked of Ladyshea in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000726" target="_blank">this discussion</a>, but I'd like to turn the question around, hopefully to get some serious discussion:

I think we all have different criteria. So, Veil of Fire, where do you draw the line? What constitutes "too silly to be believed" for you? What are your criteria? Because I'm assuming that, like the rest of us, you simply don't have time to go out and research both sides of every controversial issue or wild claim that comes along.

Edited to request that we try to keep this rational and flame-free for as long as possible.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Veil of Fire

There is no claim I would consider 'silly' just as a matter of course. I reject nothing instantly or out-of-hand.

If there's evidence one way or the other, I use it to base my conclusion on.

If there's NO evidence, one way or the other, I do NOT make a conclusion. I reserve judgement.

And I do not consider appeals to ridicule to be 'evidence'. All I've ever asked is for someone to present their evidence. I make no aff or neg claims on an issue until I see supporting or rebutting evidence.

Mageth

Veil of Fire:

I have remote viewing capabilities. Don't look now, but there's a huge scorpion under your chair.

Are you going to look? If not, why?

Reverend Ruin

Bleegee is my 4-foot in diameter invisible bumblebee friend. She follows me around everywhere I go and keeps me company day and night. I do so love her.

Veil of Fire

Mageth: I looked. Of course I'm going to look. Why should I not believe you?

Now, if it happens a few more times, and you're wrong every time, I then have something to base a conclusion off of.

Ruin: *shrug* Ok. If you say so.

MrDarwin

Thanks for the reply, but can you be a bit more specific? Is there anything you would dismiss out of hand as being wildly improbable? Here are a list of various claims; how do you decide how to evaluate them? At what point does believing--or even seriously entertaining--such a claim constitute superstition, foolishness, or madness?

• 1. Fossils are evidence of ancient life.
  2. There is a hairy, manlike creature living in the Pacific Northwest.
  3. There is an omnipotent, omniscient god.
  4. There are multiple gods.
  5. The people you see on television are tiny actors living inside your tv set.
  6. I can read your mind and I know what you're thinking right now.

What I'm getting at is that there must be a point at which we draw the line, in order to be rational human beings.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Mageth

Mageth: I looked. Of course I'm going to look. Why should I not believe you?

OK. Send me $1000 or great evil will befall you.

Veil of Fire

Nope.
Theoretically, in a truly infinite universe, anything is possible if you wait long enough or go far enough (on a scale asymptotically approaching infinity).

At the point the evidence weighs in on one side or the other. Until then, I have nothing whatsoever to base a conclusion on, either for or against.

I believe that. My major was originally geology; the process of making fossils can be duplicated, the creatures that have been fossilized are no longer *obviously* existing on the planet, and the dating puts them at various ancient ages. The evidence for affirming that resolution is greater than the evidence refuting it.

Could be. The evidence is hazy on either side... thus until someone proves convincingly that such a creature cannot exist (based on something like the ecosystem of the Pacific Northwest, or if all the trees eventually get chopped down and we don't find it) or it is actually found, I'll just shrug my shoulders.

I *hope* it's true, I'd *like* it to be true, but that's not evidence. I have nothing substantial to base a conclusion on.

Could be. No way to prove or disprove, so until I actually kick the bucket, I won't conclusively know either way.

Again, I'd *like* it to be true, but that's not evidence. I have personal anecdotes, but those aren't evidence to anyone but me. So while I might personally *believe* in such an entity, I have nothing on which to base an effective argument one way or the other. So I don't present any arguments or conclusions to that effect.

I suppose you could say that, in public, and in debate, I reserve judgement. My personal feelings/stories/wants/beliefs are not evidence.

Could be. Some evidence for it, but only provided one accepts the existance of any god/s at all. Therefore, my previous answer applies.

I disbelieve. I've taken apart TV sets, I've been to a broadcasting station, and I've met actors. Evidence against the resolution outweighs the evidence for it.

However, keep in mind that any claim could be justified to a point at which it's impossible to prove or disprove. As stated, I disbelieve that hypothesis. When you start coming back with "well, what if they..." and "they could be..."s, I'll start reserving more and more of my judgement.

For all I know, you could be.

There's some anecdotal evidence against it, but nothing conclusive. So, if you say so... *shrug*

Veil of Fire

Mageth:
Ah, very nice example.

What great evil? And why will sending you money avert it? How long do I have before it gets here?

I ask these questions in order to find out if there's anything to base a judgement here on other than my own personal miserlieness and your previous predictive failure.

That and I don't have a thousand dollars to my name. If I sent you five hundred, would only half the great evil befall me?

MrDarwin

Mageth makes a good point, if satirically. Where is the line between "open-minded" and "credulous" and "gullible"? If several of us were to somehow find out your home address (no, this isn't a threat) and sent you 100 chain letters, each one instructing you to make 10 copies and send them to different people if you don't want something bad to happen, would you do it?

It seems that we have quite different ways of looking at the world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're willing to believe that anything and everything might be true, assuming there is no good evidence against it. On the other hand, I'm willing to admit anything and everything might be true, assuming there's no good evidence against it, but I'm not going to believe it unless there's pretty good evidence for it.