Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Precambrian Carl · 07-18-2002, 10:34 AM

So, to answer your question, no, there's nothing I completely discount without some form of information on the subject. Atlantis on the bottom of the Atlantic? Could be; I'm not an Oceanographer. Yeti? For all I know. I've never looked for one, and I'm not a biologist. Plants have feelings? Well, if you say so. I have no empirical information with which to contradict it or support it.

Veil of Fire, are you an agnostic?

Carl

Afghan · 07-18-2002, 01:03 PM

I'm just curious: are we considering all possible propositions or only specific claims made by someone?

I certainly don't have time to work through the entire space of possible propositions in the English language. I have a fairly reliable framework for understanding those parts of the universe I regularly come across. I have developed this framework over a period of time and it is not immutable but if there is a proposition that does not tally with it, I require more than the existence of that proposition to want to attempt to reconcile it with my conceptual framework or refute it. There has to be something more to compel my attention.

If we are talking about a specific claim made by someone (which I suspect we are) then it is not just a neutral proposition, somebody actually wants me to believe it. The first question then is not, "Is it true?" but rather "Why do they want me to believe it?" Okay, the answer when we ask that question is still going to be, "They want me to believe it because they believe it." The question then is, "Why do they believe it?" and still not, "Is it true?"

It is only after these two inquiries have been exhausted that I would judge whether or not it was a claim that I needed to fit into my own understanding.

Veil of Fire · 07-18-2002, 01:04 PM

Bree:

Quote:

when someone challanged the supernatural (and therefore challanged my beliefs)

All I wanted to know was "why"?

Lady Shea:
We've already established that you play favorites with claims when they have equal support. I don't argue with inconsistant people if I can get away with it; it's simply not possible if topic A is subject to rule X but topic B, under very similar circumstances, is not.

Therefore, I suggest that if you reserve your 'right' to reject a claim based on lack of evidence, you either exercise it consistantly or else not expect to be taken seriously.

Kally: Since when have you sunk to 'troll' status? I'm making a point here, and you're just posting irrelevant pictures and flaming me. Please, if you say you're going to leave, just DO it.

Oolon:

Quote:

Are you so lacking in background that you can't simply say "that's bollocks" to anything?

If I have the background, I'll cite the background as reason to reject a claim. I will never simply say "That's bullocks" and then refuse to justify myself.

Quote:

Take one claim. I am in fact Superman, I can use my heat vision to melt plastic and can fly at supersonic speeds unaided (and with it barely ruffling my hair). My bones are made of titanium alloy.

How would I know? The only evidence I have to work with is your word, and the fact that until this point, I have yet to meet anyone else who fits the Superman criteria. Just because I haven't met one isn't evidence for their non-existance anymore than an anecdote of having met one would be evidence for their existance.

I have nothing to make the judgement on, and no reason to probe deeper into it since you're not requiring me to make any kind of decision on the matter. Simply saying "sure, whatever you say" and going on with life is much easier than doing in-depth research in an attempt to prove you wrong, when at the end of it, if you truly hold that belief, you most likely wouldn't objectively examine my results.

Ever tried to tell the homeless crazy guy on the street that he's not REALLY riding a bike? Not only does he continue to 'ride the bike', he's pissed at you for trying to tell him he wasn't. In those situations, it's just less of an investment (in time and effort) to let him continue to ride his bike.

And that's even a situation in which I can objectively collect evidence, on the spot, to refute the claim that he's riding a bike. In a situation where I cannot collect such evidence, I have even LESS right to reject the claim flat out.

Like I said, if I can't answer "why" more than twice, I need to do more research, not reject the claim.

Carl:

Quote:

Veil of Fire, are you an agnostic?

In public, I generally do adopt that particular system.

In private, I have my own beliefs, based on (mostly irreproducible) personal experience and anedcotes. I don't expect anyone else to accept those as actual 'evidence' in support of my beliefs. Thus, unless specifically challenged, I leave my personal religious beliefs at home, and will not expect other people to believe me if I bring them up in public discussion (without any sort of demonstration, anyway).

[I'll tell you right now, as soon as I get competant enough, I'm taking Randi's million bucks. Until then tho, I'm not going to regale you with tales that could very well still be related to circumstances and placebo effects.]

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>

Corwin · 07-18-2002, 01:18 PM

Um, news flash Veil....

If what you're doing can be attributed to circumstance and placebo effect.... you ain't gonna be a millionare any time soon.

Veil of Fire · 07-18-2002, 01:19 PM

Corwin: Again, do you ever actually add anything productive to a topic? I have yet to see you do anything but flame... if I'm to embrace this new thinking, why shouldn't I just consider you a random flamer with nothing to add to the conversation?

[edited to add: At once time, Asprin could have been related to circumstance and placebo. We've tested it enough to know it works. That I haven't adaquately tested myself enough to make a claim does not mean I'll never have the capability to do so. You know that, and just want to push my buttons anyway.]

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>

Corwin · 07-18-2002, 01:33 PM

Well you've got stamina, I'll give you that.

Unless you can do whatever it is you claim to be able to do in controlled circumstances... meeting the scientific method, Rand won't even pay your airfare. Nobody's been able to do that yet. (Although there have been some delightfully amusing excuses and rationalizations.)

Droning on and on about 'you can't PROVE I'm not magickal!!!' ain't gonna cut it Veil. If you think Rand is as gullible as you seem to think we are... you're in for a disappointment.

Repeat after me: '99.999997% is frellin close enough. The fact that somebody can't prove me wrong 100.0000000% does not mean that I'm right. Believing I can fly will not make it so.'

It's a long mantra, I know. But I wanted to drive the point home.

Your form of militant skepticism is nothing more than intellecutal masturbation that accomplishes nothing other than annoying people who live in the real world. If you want us to believe your position, don't ask for the logically impossible, especially when it isn't required to begin with.

Veil of Fire · 07-18-2002, 01:37 PM

Corwin:

Quote:

Unless you can do whatever it is you claim to be able to do in controlled circumstances..

I'm getting there. But since I'm not THERE yet, that might explain why I haven't actually elaborated on anything. I only brought it up in reference to a direct question about my personal beliefs. You'd have had to come up with something else to flame if Carl hadn't asked.

Quote:

If you want us to believe your position, don't ask for the logically impossible, especially when it isn't required to begin with.

Didn't I say that I don't expect anyone to believe my position on the subject of metaphysics? I'm pretty sure I said that... more than once, even... yup, I did! Scroll up, it's right above you.

Mad Kally · 07-18-2002, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Veil:
Kally: Since when have you sunk to 'troll' status? I'm making a point here, and you're just posting irrelevant pictures and flaming me. Please, if you say you're going to leave, just DO it.

I am a nurse with healing hands. Is that so unbelievable? How do you know it's not the Truth? What is so trollish about voodoo? Many people believe in voodoo dolls and spells.

No I'm not leaving again Veil. You're brilliant posts brought me back. Thank you.

I'm waiting for you to make your point. I can hardly wait! Stop spouting what Corwin said and answer some of the other posters.

Veil of Fire · 07-18-2002, 01:43 PM

Kally: Look five posts above yours. Is that not enough for you? Do you want me to MAKE UP some posts and then answer them? Or do you expect me to wade back into the flame-fest that the other thread has become (thanks to you and Corwin)?

Corwin · 07-18-2002, 01:47 PM

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

She's on to our Evil Trolling Consipiracy? Kal.... I think we're in trouble.

Veil your arguments have been getting bitchslapped around these threads since you started. Again... we've provided page after page after page of information... and all you've done is stick your fingers in your ears and hum REAL loud.

Troll.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2002, 10:34 AM	#41
Precambrian Carl Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Midwest Posts: 34	So, to answer your question, no, there's nothing I completely discount without some form of information on the subject. Atlantis on the bottom of the Atlantic? Could be; I'm not an Oceanographer. Yeti? For all I know. I've never looked for one, and I'm not a biologist. Plants have feelings? Well, if you say so. I have no empirical information with which to contradict it or support it. Veil of Fire, are you an agnostic? Carl

07-18-2002, 01:03 PM	#42
Afghan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Afghan is a non-local variable Posts: 761	I'm just curious: are we considering all possible propositions or only specific claims made by someone? I certainly don't have time to work through the entire space of possible propositions in the English language. I have a fairly reliable framework for understanding those parts of the universe I regularly come across. I have developed this framework over a period of time and it is not immutable but if there is a proposition that does not tally with it, I require more than the existence of that proposition to want to attempt to reconcile it with my conceptual framework or refute it. There has to be something more to compel my attention. If we are talking about a specific claim made by someone (which I suspect we are) then it is not just a neutral proposition, somebody actually wants me to believe it. The first question then is not, "Is it true?" but rather "Why do they want me to believe it?" Okay, the answer when we ask that question is still going to be, "They want me to believe it because they believe it." The question then is, "Why do they believe it?" and still not, "Is it true?" It is only after these two inquiries have been exhausted that I would judge whether or not it was a claim that I needed to fit into my own understanding.

07-18-2002, 01:18 PM	#44
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Um, news flash Veil.... If what you're doing can be attributed to circumstance and placebo effect.... you ain't gonna be a millionare any time soon.

07-18-2002, 01:19 PM	#45
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Corwin: Again, do you ever actually add anything productive to a topic? I have yet to see you do anything but flame... if I'm to embrace this new thinking, why shouldn't I just consider you a random flamer with nothing to add to the conversation? [edited to add: At once time, Asprin could have been related to circumstance and placebo. We've tested it enough to know it works. That I haven't adaquately tested myself enough to make a claim does not mean I'll never have the capability to do so. You know that, and just want to push my buttons anyway.] [ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Veil of Fire ]</p>

07-18-2002, 01:33 PM	#46
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Well you've got stamina, I'll give you that. Unless you can do whatever it is you claim to be able to do in controlled circumstances... meeting the scientific method, Rand won't even pay your airfare. Nobody's been able to do that yet. (Although there have been some delightfully amusing excuses and rationalizations.) Droning on and on about 'you can't PROVE I'm not magickal!!!' ain't gonna cut it Veil. If you think Rand is as gullible as you seem to think we are... you're in for a disappointment. Repeat after me: '99.999997% is frellin close enough. The fact that somebody can't prove me wrong 100.0000000% does not mean that I'm right. Believing I can fly will not make it so.' It's a long mantra, I know. But I wanted to drive the point home. Your form of militant skepticism is nothing more than intellecutal masturbation that accomplishes nothing other than annoying people who live in the real world. If you want us to believe your position, don't ask for the logically impossible, especially when it isn't required to begin with.

07-18-2002, 01:43 PM	#49
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Kally: Look five posts above yours. Is that not enough for you? Do you want me to MAKE UP some posts and then answer them? Or do you expect me to wade back into the flame-fest that the other thread has become (thanks to you and Corwin)?

07-18-2002, 01:47 PM	#50
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO She's on to our Evil Trolling Consipiracy? Kal.... I think we're in trouble. Veil your arguments have been getting bitchslapped around these threads since you started. Again... we've provided page after page after page of information... and all you've done is stick your fingers in your ears and hum REAL loud. Troll.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.