Lafcadio

I could tell you from start I'm not omnipotent Now serious I was talking about the hypothetical situation when all people would regard sex as unpleasant. I cannot make it so, only offer you this case just for debate's sake. For reality's sake we have the contrary "the sex is pleasant".

Well, morality has some cultural aspects (IMO) as well, I was not trying to entirely label morality as universal for the entire humankind, but it's certain that certain values, I'd add core values (like human life) are universal within the boundaries of our species.


Actually could be my bad english too. Anyway, I'm glad we didn't get into stubborness disagreements like I'm doing atm with Bobinius


Yes, it can include claims which in themselves are not repetable, but it offers the mechanism of analyse through repetability through the number of those questioned (whose opinions are taken in account). To make a cheesy analogy, is like when someone is studying Big Bang, a phenomenon which is not repetable by itself, but the inductive analysis is still on when he analyses the evidences (those many "individuals" that report it) which point to the same thing, the Big Bang.
To continue this cheesy analogy, it would be a true Ad Populum fallacy if you take all the Big Bang evidences and try to infer from it that grass is green. It would not be a true Ad Populum fallacy to infer the Big Bang. In both cases, the inferrence will be ultimately validated by the number of proofs, but in first case, it's not a valid inferrence, in second case it is. (Note: the analogy is made - individual = evidence). The Ad Populum argument doesn't hold how those many guys reached to their opinions, just infers the conclusion. Which in some cases, can be true, with respect to those guys (any human, mathematicians, teenagers with blue shirts).

Lafcadio

Sure, whatever you say (see below).

Wrong, it has to be veryified more times to be true. There's an entire theory of measurement, which is studied in most math-physics-technical schools. The repetability of observation is necessary also to validate the corectness of the observing process, but also to validate the existence of the observed itself. This is the difference between hallucinations and unknown source turbulences and real things. It's real only because it can be reported by many (many observations, many observers). There's absolutely no other proof.

The weakness of science is that it cannot never prove it actually true, that's why it's essential, "for induction's sake", to confirm it as many times as possible.

I was talking about their clients

No, it means you don't know how to have it. And if you're not excessively shy, you should see a doctor (or it it's just a matter of technique, consult a more experienced friend). In any case, you should treat it like a problem, not a normal thing.

Sexual pleasure is significantly phisiological, which is common to all humans. Those not having it, are abnormal as individuals. Sex is pleasant is a fair statement about all healthy and sane individuals. Actually you will find it even in anatomy books. Damn science, using "Ad Populum" arguments

No, it means you should feel good. If you can't, you have a problem. "Sex is pleasure" is not how you feel it (think it), but is how you should feel it (think it). Likewise (to follow an earlier parallel) E = mc ^ 2 is not how you know it, but is how you should know it.

There's two aspects of it, which you like to equivocate. I'm talking of necessity and you keep treat it as equivalence.
Pitagora's theorem is true (to us) because it can be proven (to us) somehow.
But to make Pitagora theorem true is necessary to be proven to somebody. The act of proving Pitagora theorem is what makes it true.
If only Pitagora would have believe Pitagora's theorem, it wouldn't have been true. It means the all the others would have disagreed on premises, on inferences, on something from Pitagora's proof (could be a simple disliking, if you want the absurd case).
For instance, let's assume string theory is the actual theory that models the Universe (though we can't verify it). String theory is not true, because no one credits it. The standard model is true, because we all credit it. The proof itself it's irrelevant to it's real truthness, rather assures us of a certain coherence and predictability (what you have earlier identified as characteristics of science), it's like an exam, a restriction we require for some knowledge to label it as scientific and use it as true (not be necessarily really persuaded of its truthness). The scientific method doesn't make something true, nor makes it more true, it's just our pragmatic way of doing things. And I sincerely don't think anyone can prove it's more than that.


If any person believes (holds) B, how can you prove that B is untrue? Or rather who will prove that? :rolling:

Shown above. If k persons believe B, by induction all persons believe B. If all persons believe B, then B is true because it can't be proven that B is not true, and it's just a pragmatic and progressist way to consider it as true.
Or otherwise, if all true-false evaluators will hold X as true, then X is true by the very definition of logic and truth, which exist only for the true-false evaluators (which are the human beings for our case)

Knowledge is not a philsophical term. To know is a verb in plain english.

The preference for JTB is not justified. The Gettier problem is not justified. If you cannot prove the necessity of your approach over the plain dictionary approach you're begging the question, you're redefining the terms and going with fast steps to a monologue.
To address your content, the word justified in the definition you shown begs the question. What means to justify? Who justifies it? Why is it justified? You cannot justify ad infinitum and from nothingness. The Standford link explains the usage of "belief" to annul the circumstances of "luck". But their own example illustrates belief as fear, as a tendency, not as a plain affirmative statement. A fundamentalist religious does not believe in his god, just by a tendency he has to believe that. If you'll ask him he'll say he knows that his god exists.
On the other hand, your own definiton does not repel "belief" as knowledge. A believer is justified to believe because:
a) voices in his head told him so
b) his priest told him so
c) his parents told him so
d) it fits his worldview
e) he plainly likes it
f) ... imagine yourself some more "justifications".
If this is what can justification yes, yes I agree with JTB account. But for our discussion and I find the "J" superfluous, as always there's a reason. I was not talking about fears or hopes, but about things held true (even by belief). I see a fear or a hope as a thing being held as probably true, or wishfully true (the one fearing or hoping, realizing his wish). If justification means a rigurous proof in a certain epistemological context (or something alike - an evidence of some sort and quality), then I don't agree with it and hold my above opinion, that such redefinition is totally uncalled. I will prove it with real examples (sentences).
"I know that you've been there" - plain english. Derivable into "It's in my knowledge that you've been there". The only "justification" being that, of course, the respective person told me so and I trust her.
Also "I know that Pluto is 40 AU away" may illustrate a knowledge I have an even vaguer "justification" for it. I may not remember when and how I got to know this. The only "justification" is that I trust my memory and reason.

As you keep repeating claims, I will have to redirect you to the paragraph above where I shown if all people believe x, then x is true.

Because you don't know. I will give you a simpler task. Prove that sun does exist, or that Earth is round. Or even simpler - pick your own. Just to be related to the real world.

I really don't think your doubts value anything. Go to the philosophy forum and express them in a neat carthesian way

Do you think I'm only parroting syntagms like others? If you don't know what means to "analyse" and what means "inductively" you may have the right to ask this question, otherwise your rhetoric doesn't help.

I said that, too. So?

Strawman. I didn't challange its framework. I'm talking about the approach for facts, for empirism, or how we build any concept from facts.
But if you brought that up, yes, even large parts from the presuppositional framework are built inductively.
In other words, you cannot generalize anything about the real world without induction. Maybe this formulation will help you understand why you can't make science without induction.
Generalization is induction. The only induction with rigurous proof is the mathematical one, which is impossible in the real world. No one, never could prove that Pn->Pn+1 for a real phenomena. A simple experiment is to call for another induction.

You cannot study anything empirical without induction. If an observation is not repeatable, you cannot derive anything scientific from it. If the observation is repeatable, but at n-th measurement, it will falsify your hypothesis, then it goes down. This is science, not the characteristics you emphasize without a proper understanding.

Induction is also Appeal To Number. As you wrote yourself, if P1, .. Pk are true (Pi is Ai holds B) then you have P.

This is actually an expression of democracy. Of majority, not of unanimity. But I'll grant the metaphor

If all people belive in superstitions, then superstitions are true.

Like what? I challanged you to prove any simple real fact as true, and you're avoiding it. If no one can't prove it true, what makes it true?

If many enough people believe that witchcraft works, and no one belives the contrary (whatever, all that believe it are mentally ill or something), then it's reasonable by induction to affirm that all people believe it. If all people believe it, then it's true.
The notions of true or false exists as long as someone is thinking about them. There's no knowledge without a knower, there's no logic without a thinker. There's no objectivism, there's nothing outside human mind (nothing provable anyway ). Stop deceiving yourself. The only thinkers are ourselves, therefore everything is related to us, the human beings.

You can't actually prove that there were more planets than Mercur ... Saturn when all people believed it (20000 years ago, for instance). All you can do it's to infer also by induction that, for instance, Neptun was there. So basically it's argument by number vs argument by number. The last one is considered stronger, because it's gives a more coherent view (it's easier picturable that Neptun was 20000 years ago and people didn't know about it, than that Neptun suddently appeared when it was observed for the first time, plus today it's embeddable in a larger, coherent, scientific worldview).
Like I said above, we hold today Standard Model as true. If people will falsify it in 10000 years, won't make us consider it not true, or unprobably true, or whatever. It's true for us, no matter what future will discover. No matter if our justifications are in fact unjustified in 10000 years.


Because you're following a non sequitur and you don't want to follow the right logical track. The Ad Populum argument may very well be (at least this is in my mind when I claim "sex is pleasant", I can't tell how you reason it) is "large number of believers in X and no significant opposer -> all are believers in X -> X is true"

I know, but I said it's more than one. Do you imply this is the single empirical evidence for Relativity? This is the cherry from the top of the cake


:banghead:
H -> P1 (instance 1 of prediction, test 1 if you want)
H -> P2
H -> P3
...
H -> P
(induction)
if H does not have Pi as consequence, then you'll have a problem

The "probabilistic" is your adding which makes the equivocation and the strawman
No, induction says that all instances fit.
Probabilistic induction says that probably instances will fit.
Two different assertions, both valid.

You failed to prove anything scientific without induction

Give me a break, the hypothetical core is not founded on evidence?
Do you think people were just imagining fabulous things and then tried to see if they fit?

Yes

You're confusing (equivocating) the theory with the scientific methodology. The former are confirmed or disproved, the latter remains, no matter how many theories come and go.

I hope for humanity's sake you're not a scientist

But repetable. And they are tested over and over.

It depends, like I said. I am not a scientist. But I can tell you that when I deploy a software build I test it over and over to make sure it works (even if I'm not hunting bugs)

Photos are evidence? Don't tell me you believe all that Star Trek stuff - come on, you saw it, right?
I also saw some "Nibiru" photos. Maybe you're interested in those, too.

Don't switch the burden of proof.
Your call also begs the question. If there's no way of explaining it means it must be explained?

Sure, good ole scientists doing charity work in labs. Nowadays, some of you replaced religion with scientificism.

I mean I reported you to the mods

You're paranoic if you see aversion.

Paid to agree? I said paid to share, you strawman lover.

I think I explained it above. If you'd actually argue and not embrace fallacies and insults, you maybe could have seen it.

I don't use "=", you're using it. When you'll stop making strawmans from my arguments, seeing identities all over, you'll be able to understand. Meanwhile, happy monologue I wish ya!

What all believe is true. This is a particular case of Ad Populum I defended all over this thread.

I say !p -> !q. You say p -> q.
I say (!p and !q, p and !q, p and q)
you say (p and q, !p and q, !p and !q)
only the middle situation differs.
The difference is that I say he can be justified and not recognized, you say he can be recognized and not justified. Look who's viewing science as being vox populi conditioned :rolling:


Bottom line. The main reason of your intervention was about inductive reasoning and science. If you cannot prove anything real (a phenomenon of some sort) without using inductive method (and without falling into the classic fallacies), your intervention is null and rhetoric.

Angrillori

Would it be safe to say then that we agree, at least, that they're not yet considered 'evidence'?

'Cause I really don't see anything distasteful about your position, in that case. I'm open to the possibility of evidence, I just disagree with luvluv that such currently qualify as evidence, simply by dint of the fact that we're relying on currently inexpert diagnoses--while he considers merely having an experience enough to make one an expert at diagnosing the source of it.

It was the characterization of your point as somehow supporting luvluv that I disagreed with. Again, I apologize.

A-ha! I see the place we're missing each other. I'm not arguing "should be-s" but "is-s". Luvluv has made the claim that a guy having an experience IS an expert at diagnosing its source. I'm merely pointing out that in fact, he, and I both ACTUALLY do not accept personal interpretations as "expert" diagnoses.

Whether or not a guy who hears Jesus should be sent to a psychologist, the fact is that we do send him there, because we don't trust his interpretation of the source of the voices he hears.

In fact, at the top of page 4, I think it was, I think I illustrated that very well with several other non-disorder "self-diagnoses" we wouldn't accept.

For example:
Bob says he sees red. Then he says it's because magical happy elves are painting invisible red paint on his brain. However, scientists say he sees red because a certain wavelength of light is hitting his retina. We don't accept Bob's diagnosis, because he's not familiar with vision, light, visual perception, and the physics of color and EM radiation.

Factually speaking, we don't just accept any Joe on the streets interpretation of why things happen--why airplanes fly, why the sky is blue, why we can't know the position and momentum of tiny particles simultaneously, why a photon acts as a particle and a wave, and we shouldn't accept Joe on the streets interpretation of why he saw a tunnel of light, then felt light headed, and like he was floating outside of his body when he had what he called an NDE.

Absolutely, if I were using that as an argument, rather than simply an illustration of what is. I'm not saying we should send the guy to the psychiatrist, but that we do send him to the psychiatrist, thereby exposing the fact that he is NOT an expert at diagnosing the source of the voices he hears.
Your illustration with him as an atheist actually works for this too, if I had thought any more about it.

No matter what he thinks is the source of his motivation, we don't trust that. But we do trust the psychiatrist. Why? Because the psychiatrist is the expert, and the sociopath is not.

It seems I should be thanking you for pointing that out. I imagine luvluv would have gotten the point better if I had used an atheist attributing his feelings to something non-godly as an example of inexpert diagnosis than a theist.

So, for his sake:

Bob is an atheist. He gets a happy, serene, warm feeling when he kills fish. He decides this is because the spirits of the fish are thanking him for killing them. Do we accept his "expert" diagnosis as to the source of feelings or no?

Bobinius

A scientific claim is true when is verified. If I claim the patient has myocardial infarction the truth maker of this claim is finding the clinical, electrical and biochemical that verify it. If it is confirmed, the scientifical claim 'This patient has a myocardial infarction is true. I don't have to verify it more than once.

If I say that on 10th of June there will be an eclipse at 9 pm, visible from India, then if on June 10, at 9pm the eclipse is observed, the scientific claim is verified and true.

You make a weird confusion between a scientific theory and a scientific claim, like a prediction derived from a theory.

This no proof either. I am trying to understand what you are talking about, you might have a point, but either you are expressing it wrong or you are talking about a different thing. You really should try to be more clear, if you want me to get your point.

The validity of a theory is determined by a succesful prediction, a confirmation. These predictions, deduced from the theory are representative, are discriminative predictions, to differentiate it for example from the established paradigm. The predictions, when they are confirmed, the theory is also confirmed. With many, many repeated confirmations you only make the theory stronger, without ever being able to prove it. A confirmation is made by every individual verification of a prediction. You don't need many repeated confirmations to say the theory is confirmed. One is sufficient. How strong, supported is you theory is another issue.

There is no such thing 'for induction's sake'. No one is doing it for induction.

You can never prove it, because there is always a possible alternative that is compatible with the data. If you would conclude that the theory is true, after the confirmation, you would be Affirming the Consequent. No one is doing that. No one is repeating it for induction's sake.

If I am having a not so good sex once, I don't know how to have it? Talking about fallacious inductive reasoning.

No, I did not say I am not enjoying it every time I am doing it. The point is that if I don't like it sometimes, I am contradicting your definition.I am falsifying it.

If many white people say that black people are inferior (like the rasist ideas we've had a couple of centuries ago), this means black people are inferior?

Hardly. It is fallacious.

Amigo,the pleasure you have when you have sex depends on who are you having sex with.

Sex is pleasant is a subjective matter, and Ad Populum has nothing to do with it. It reflects the feelings of the people. It is like saying that a referendum is making the Ad Populum fallacy.

You won't find it in any Anatomy book. Check. Anatomy studies something else.

Science is not using Ad Populum. You are.

Oh my, you are probably having heavenly moments every time you have sex.

Usually people feel very good when they have sex, or they can feel not so good, or may not even like it sometimes. It depends on the mood, the place, the moment, the other person.

If a girl meets a guy who doesn't know how to get her aroused and she is not getting any pleasure, but she has a great sex with another, according to your Ad Populum standard she has a problem. Poor girl.

So everyone who declared Sex is pleasure was talking about how they should feel it, not about how they felt it.

Yes, Lafcadio you are correct.

So, truth is what people believe. Splendid. Pitagora's theorem is true to us.

Is possible then that Pitagora's theorem is false to someone else, to whom it couldn't be proven?

There was a moment when only Pitagora believed it. It wasn't true then, according to your understanding.

And he did not only believed it, he knew it was true.

So, if all others would have disagreed, Pitagora's theorem would have been false?

This is just autobiography.

We don't know if string theory is true or not. We cannot decide at the moment. No one says ST is false.

It seems you are modifying all logic in order to make the Ad Populum valid. You should accept it is fallacious instead.

:banghead:

Ad Populum.

The standard model is true because it has lots of evidence for it, it is very well supported, and it explaines our observations very accurately. This is why it is accepted.

Who is this 'we all'? Most people don't know what the Standard Model is. And some of them talk about it without knowing it.

This is false. Plain absurdity. You are talking about Magic, not Science.

We won't keep any popular belief if it is contradicted by lots of evidence. Espcially as scientifical.

The scientific method does not prove anything with certainty. It eliminates falsities.

If there is no one to prove it (you killed all the others who disagreed for example), this does not mean the belief is true. THIS IS NOT THE AD POPULUM ARGUMENT, WHICH SAYS THAT MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE B, THEN B IS TRUE.

It says many, the majority, not all.

B is believed to be true, B is not true.

All people believing in a falsity, does not make the falsity true.

You define truth as what people believe. I don't. I define truth as that which is the case. To you, if many believe that outside is day, it is day, even if outside is night.

Again, What is the logical deductive connection between the number of believers and the truth of the belief?

:banghead: I was showing that Ad Populum has nothing to do with induction. You clearly did not get it.

Dude, where is the connection with the truth of B?

f k persons believe B, then B is true? Where is the inductive inference? This is not induction.

The Ad Populum does not say ALL, it says MANY, NUMEROUS. You are attacking a Straw Man.

If all people believed that the Earth is fixed, that did not mean the Earth was fixed is true. No one knew it was false.

Existence is not a philosophical term either.

And philosophy is in Chinese.

Okay baba, go debate in non-philosophical terms philosophical matters.

If you are an ignorant regarding a definition that is used since Plato, I have nothing to add.

You can see that these are Philosophical forums, it says right there, if you think it does not fit your abilities you can safely refrain from posting here. Or expect to be asked to use philosophical terms. But don't attack me for using a philosophical approach on knowledge.

1. You are beating a Straw Man. Ad Populum says that if MANY, not all, believe x, does not make x true.

2. If all people believe x, there is no one who does not believe x. Is considered true. Does not mean it necessarily is .

You really don't know what I know.

What Sun?

If I go there and express them, you promise to come and let the others know your theory of truth and knowledge?

Your brilliant construction is meaningless when applied to the scientific method. Just evidence that you have a bad missunderstanding of the Scientific Method.

Do you think Scientists are so stupid and never heard about the problem of induction, only you did?

Do you think after they heard about it they inserted it in their methods?

If you can't get it, you can't.

Read this article before talking about other people's knowledgeScientific Method

Or I will tell you to the mods

1. Is not Appeal to Number.

2. I did not write that. Straw Man:

Person A1 believes B
Person A2 believes B
...

Person Ak believes B
--------------------

Therefore any person Ai believes B. DOES NOT MEAN B IS TRUE.

In your understanding if A1 believes B, then B is true. This is your understanding only. It is very, very wrong.




1. You are making a Straw Man.

2. Supperstitions will be believed to be true, not made actually true, by all believers.

What happens if after all people believe superstitions are true, and then one comes along and believes is false? The supperstitions are not true anymore?

?

There is an internet debate forum, called IIDB.

Imagination and Straw Man.

It says MANY. You have a fetish of transorming it into ALL. You think you have a case with all.

Speaks for itself.

If all people believe it, then ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IT IS TRUE. Does not imply it is true.

A solipsist! :wave: Great.
<edit>

The logical track is to make Large = All. The Lafcadio transformation.

And then to conclude if there is no one to believe it is false, it is true.



Straw Man.

I said it was one confirmation sufficient to confirm it. After that we got more confirmations.

Read the link. You don't know what you are talking about.

"Dream on, it is hard to tell, that you're fooling yourself, Dreeeaaaaaaam on."

Nazareth

Inductive inferences are probabilistical, not necessary. Dream on.

Yes. They are not 'fabulous'. For example the counterintuitive thing that space has a different geometry than euclidean.

'Imagination is more important than knowledge' Albert Einstein.

It does not matter how you arrive at the hypothesis. Read Einstein's book 'The world as I see it'

Is futile. You are leaving in fantasy.

I am sure you are not.

It does not happen that way, not 'it depends'. Ignorance is a bliss.

Ho, ho.

How do you think we know Saturn looks like that? Amaze me.

?

I said it is the best. Probably you are riding a broom in order to move around, not a car. Magic is better than science.

Sorry, I forgot to put the smiley as you do after a tougher remark. Did I hurt your sensitive big ego that much? With an innocent question?



In plain English, paranoic has no meaning. In Romanian it does. It means the same as 'paranoid' in English.

Scientists are paid to share knowledge. This means they share different knowledge. A contradiction in terms.

No my man, you are only making the Lafcadio transformation from Many --> All, inventing the Lafcadio Ad Populum version and fallaciously infer : All believe it, so it is true. It is believed to be true by all.

So, Pitagora's theorem is true because many believe it to be?

This is the Lafcadio version. AKA Straw Man.

False anyway.

:rolling: :rolling: this is what you say:

If no one ever recognized him, his sayings were not justified.

False.

His saying may well be justified, and no one to recognize him.

You can prove something real using induction? Without inducing from something that is already real? Bring it on.

Please disprove anything real using inductive method or deductive.

Reality is arrived at empirically, not deductively.

You only have a theory that truth is what people believe. A malformed straw man of Ad Populum.

You are not able to prove the logical connection between the number of people that believe and the truth of the belief. Put up or shut up. You did not put anything up.

bad_logic

As I said before, we agree, pragmatically speaking. I still contest that there is a subtle difference, based on your previous posts.
You might say, "If a [religious] experience is not justified by an expert, then we do not take it to represent empirical evidence"
I would say, "If there are no experts to justify a [religious] experience, we do not take it to represent empirical evidence."
Like I said, subtle difference

The following statement of yours has an addition ( in []'s ):
I am not aware of anyone being submitted for psychiatric evaluation for having simply a religious experience. Admittedly, I am no expert. But assuming we are both correct in the assertion that there are no experts on religious experiences, I would be greatly disturbed to learn that anyone was referred ( by an expert ) to a psychologist simply for having a religious experience. Hence, my addition of [ tell him to commit a crime ]. Then it becomes a statement I can agree with. ( Yes, I'm being picky )

I'm going to offer a clarification of terms:
Now, some examples you gave:

I agree. On these points, I don't believe I've ever disagreed with you. The distinction I want made is in the why. In light of the above laid out terms, we see that Bob's perception of his experience is not a verified event. However, this is because we have experts in "the experience" ( eye-doctors, physicists ), and we also have experts that can refute his perception. Let me be very clear here. His perception is that "There are happy magical elves painting my brain red". We DO NOT have experts on happy magical elves [HMEs], but we DO have experts on the brain, and experts on paint. If Bob would permit it, such experts could cut open his brain and see that there is no red paint. If there were HME experts, they could, at that point also weigh in and determine whether or not such evidence for his perception existed. The important part for Bob is, there is relevant expert testimony for both his "experience" and his "perception". Because of this, we can summarily rule out the suggestion that his perception be taken to be empirically valid. IE - Bob was wrong
Joe, on the other hand, is a more difficult situation. Assume for the sake of argument, that Joe's experience occurred while he was hooked up to a wide assortment of medical equipment ( EKG, EEG, etc ), and there are experts in human psychology, physiology, neurology, etc in attendance. Joe goes brain dead. He is revived, and recounts his experience. He claims to have "seen a tunnel of light". The neurologist says, "Impossible! He was brain dead, there was no activity in his visual cortex" The psychologist, after speaking wth Joe at great length, determines, "It is not likely that Joe is lying, he may not have actually seen the tunnel, but he certainly believes that he did". In this event, there is a seeming contradiction. Joe isn't lying, but the neurologist will never believe he is telling the truth. The fact that he was braindead means there is no data with which the neurologist or physiologist can verify his experience. In other words, no one ( including Joe ) is an expert in his experience. Further, as there are no experts in NDEs, there are no experts in his perception. Therefore, there is NO WAY for experts to refute his perception of the event. We do not take Joe's perception as a verified event because it cannot be analyzed - The experts never get out of the gate, let alone cross the finish line - not because it is "wrong".
Admittedly, I could find holes in this analysis, but that's because I was trying to use your example. Obviously, one may suggest that because he recalls the experience, it could not have happened while he was brain dead, etc etc. These are faults of the example, not the reasoning. The goal is not to say NDE's are valid, it's to illustrate the difference between:
1) A perception that is false because the experience OR the perception is flawed
2) A perception that is false because both the experience AND perception is flawed
3) A perception that cannot be verified by and expert because there are no experts on the perception OR the experience.
4) A perception that cannot be verified by and expert because there are no experts on the perception NOR the experience.

So, neither Bob nor Joe will have their perception of events entered into empirical record. However, if one were to discard both events in the same manner, then they are making a serious error in judgement. Any record of Bob's testimony of his experience and testimony can be destroyed. They are of no value ( except perhaps in a case study of whackos ). If you destroy Joe's testimony of his experience, and his perception of it, then you would be suggesting "It is of no value". And this is untrue. We cannot assign it value. In this manner of speaking, it is of strictly more empirical importance than Bobs HMEs, but also strictly less important than any empirically verified fact.

Therefore, we should not consider that many people have a religious experience to be evidence of a God. However, were one to equate a religious experience with "Happy Magic Elves painting my brain red" ( not suggesting you did, was merely a handy example ), then they are either fooling themselves, or just being an ass.

So, I wouldn't say we disagree with the action ( of sending someone to a psychiatrist, or not taking a non-experts testimony as empirical etc ). I simply wanted it to be made clear as to WHY. I believe I have done that.

In regards to your discussion with luvluv;
Empirically speaking, I side with you. But as I've said before, I'm not a pragmatist. If there is no empirical method of evaluation on a matter, then I would be inclined to see some favor in an ad populum argument, for the purposes of nonempirical discussion. In other words, after viewing this poll, I'd feel on fairly firm ground in stating, "The Hulk will kick everyone's ass"

Angrillori

Okay, I agree 100%.

But then, how about the religious experiences like NDE's for which there are experts?* (I maintain that there are in fact experts on NDE's. I'll include a bit that originally I had earlier in my response, but excised--it's at the end of the post.) More simply, how about hearing voices, which, I think we'll agree there are experts on the experience of hearing? I would just wonder how many experiences possibly fall in the category of having no experts in either the perception or the experience. Bob was declared wrong flat out because an expert in the experience contradicted him--even in the lack of experts on the perception. I don't think I agree on a general lack of experts in the experience part of most if not all religious experiences.

If that's all that was needed to count out Bob, I would just wonder how many of the religious experiences we can count out on the same grounds. We may even lose the ad populum issue if only a few scattered cases are left in even just the "no-experts-at-all" limbo.

I see where you're coming from, I guess I'm just hung up on the side that no matter which way we turn it, we're appealing to inexpert opinions. We're kind of combining an ad pop. with an appeal to invalid authority.

It just seems too much like saying:

"It's okay to appeal to inexpert testimony, if a lot of the non-experts agree."
I can see the allure in granting the statement some minimal level of use if there are no experts on hand to discredit the inexpert opinion.

BUT, I just don't see the lack of experts suddenly making the inexpert opinion more worthy.
An non-expert is still a non-expert even if:

• Everyone agrees with him, or if

• There is no expert, or if

• The color of the sky is blue.

None of these things make the non-expert's opinion any more likely to be true--they don't suddenly grant him expert status.
I'm not an expert on the aliens of cygnus 3 any more or less whether or not anyone else on earth actually IS an expert on them buggers, or whether or not everyone else agrees with me that they're probably really cute and cuddly.)

Well....THAT'S a different story entirely!


*In regards to experts on NDE's:

It's important to note here that no one claiming to have had an NDE has ever been shown to have been truly brain dead. (You'll hear the words "clinically dead" or just "dead" or even "near dead" bandied about a lot, but it's essential to note that brain activity was present, monitorable, and monitored.)

There have been people who have studied NDE's, replicated NDE's, and analyzed brain activity in both "authentic" and these "replica" NDE's. There have been people who compared both the descriptions from the experiencers and from the recording devices. If someone studied the data from the activity in Joe's brain, AND compared that to others with the same activity, AND studied descriptions from Joe, AND studied descriptions from other patients, AND recreated the level of brain activity by other non-death means, AND studied the charts AND studied the testamonies of those who experienced these recreations, THEN I think most agree that person is an expert in NDE's.

(As you pointed out, your argument wasn't for NDE's per se, but the point I'm making here is that there are experts in a lot of the "experience parts" of religious experiences.)

One other little bit, just from personal preference:
Is there a better word to use than "perception" for the idea we're using it for here? I don't think it's right to equate:
"I perceive happy elves painting my brain red,"
and:
"I claim that I'm seeing red because happy elves are painting my brain red."

John Powell

POWELL:
I've been extra busy the last few days. I'm sorry for the delay.

POWELL:
We're not measuring pearls directly, but we're recording CLAIMS to having pearls and considering whether those claims count as evidence for the existence of magical pearls and magical oysters that we don't observe directly. Similarly, if we're trying to determine whether to believe that black holes and worm holes exist then we might research the scientific CLAIMS and consider whether to use them as evidence for black holes and worm holes.

POWELL:
Ancient people used to believe such things. Some of the claims of the Bible aren't all that different. The point is that it has been claimed that others have had the same or similar religious experience. Similarly, when you read about such and such experiment being verified then it's one research group CLAIMING that they obtained similar results as what the earlier research group CLAIMED. You, the reader, didn't verify either claim, yet you believe the claims count as evidence for the truth of what was claimed.

POWELL:
It would be enough to Mormons, I think, if the Christian investigator accepted the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ to go along with the Bible.

POWELL:
Personally, I hold to a mythical Jesus.

If Mormonism is true (I don't think it is) then our beliefs to the contrary won't change that.

POWELL:
A claim is considered a fact if we consider it as such. Whether we believe something is true or not doesn't change its actual truth value.

POWELL:
The description of the pearl could be made more vague to better match the religious analogy. I was trying to get something like your marble example.

POWELL:
In my model, I assumed the atheist would judge it to be 99% (with 1% false) while the theist would assume it's the actual world value of 90% (with 9% false).

POWELL:
In my model, I assumed that the atheist would judge it to be 90%, and the theist would judge it to be 50%.

POWELL:
In my model, the two sides agree that P(R/G) > P(R/~G). Atheist: 99% > 90%, Theist 90% > 50%.

POWELL:
In my model, the atheist predicts 90%, the theist 50%.

POWELL:
It is possible that a thing thought to be a fact does not correspond to reality.

POWELL:
If a skeptic were to experience the pearl / angel for himself then he would have much less need to bother with the claims of others.

POWELL:
The question here is NOT, based on all the information is P(Magical oyster/ all information) > 50%, but whether P(magical oyster/claims of pearls) > assumed P(magical oyster).

POWELL:
I think theists and atheists should agree that there will likely be more RE's in a God world than in a Godless world.

POWELL:
All things are related. Some things are more closely related than other things.

POWELL:
Generally speaking, the majority are right more often than they are wrong. If that weren't the case then it would seem that we would increase our chances of being right by choosing whatever is the minority opinion.

POWELL:
If you want to decide whether black holes exist, could you use the claims by scientists to help you come to a decision?

POWELL:
Only logically possible things should be included as possible hypotheses, so "square circles" is disqualified.

POWELL:
Whether the probability that pearls exist rises given the claims that they exist.

POWELL:
The argument here is NOT between whether God probably exists or not, but whether claims increase the probability that God exists. My model indicates that both sides should agree that the posterior rises over the prior.

POWELL:
Why can't the theist ignore questions that they aren't asking? Is the original question

1. Do RE's increase the probability that God exists and therefore RE's count as Bayesian evidence for God?

or

2. Do fake RE's increase the probability that God exists?

In my model, I found the answers to be yes to Q1, and no to Q2.

POWELL:
The theist may not be asking about the fake RE's, but whether the RE's count as evidence for God.

The atheist claim "Theists have no Bayesian evidence for God" is refuted by the statement "RE's serve as Bayesian evidence for God under reasonable atheistic and theistic assumptions."

POWELL:
To use Bayesian analysis properly to persuade the atheist to accept that theists have evidence for God, the theist would need to allow for the possibility that God does not exist.

POWELL:
Perhaps the pearl could take on enough different forms that you wouldn't need to use toasters.

John Powell

Angrillori

#1) First, keep in mind that what we're talking about are not RE's, but E's which are inexpertly diagnosed as religious.

Which would make the question: Were these inexperts more or less likely to diagnose an E as religious if god exists or not? This is an inanswerable question, as the chance of diagnosing an E as religious by an inexpert is influenced by many factors, one of the least of which could be the existence/non-existence of a god. If you account for all the other factors (amount of religious indoctrination, the amount of scientific knowledge, the general lack of skepticism, the presence of Jonathan Edward's Crossing OverTV show, etc) then you might be able to assert something meaningful about the likelihood of a person to diagnose an experience as religious based on the existence or non-existence of god. In short, you would need to isolate the variable.

At that point though, you might be tempted to say: Well, what about if all the other factors are equal?
That doesn't help though, because then we would need a baseline. We've just shifted the question from being unanswerable for one reason, to being unanswerable for another reason. We know how likely a person is to diagnose "religious" in this world already. We would need to know if this likelihood is closer to the likehood in an atheistic world just like ours, or a theistic world just like ours. That data is just unavailable. Since that data is unavailable, there is no way to know if our current likelhood level is evidence for atheism or for theism, and the current rate of god-diagnosis is useless as evidence.

It's like if I claimed that we could know the end of the world is coming because there will be more flu outbreaks than when the world isn't ending. I could say: Hey, there are a LOT of flu cases now. Alone though, that isn't actually saying anything. We need to have another number to compare it to--either the number we would expect when the world was ending, or the number we would expect when the world wasn't ending. Now in this case I could go to historical records and see how many flu outbreaks there were 100 years ago and compare. In the case of evidence for god though, I have no universe KNOWN to be with or without god to compare the data to.


#2) This one is functionally a lot like the last objection, but deals in comparing absolute numbers of expereinces reported to be religious, as opposed to the likelihood of any individual diagnosing his experience as religious.
You state:
Which is all fine and good, BUT, you accept that there will be E's reported as religious in both theistic and non-theistic worlds. What is the baseline then to determine whether our world has the lower atheistic RE number or the theistic E number? If our world matches the atheistic world number, then the amount of RE's is evidence of the non-existence of god. If our number matches the theistic world number, then the RE's are evidence of god's existence. The mere fact "There are a LOT of experiences reported as religious," is meaningless as data unless we have a second data point to compare it to--either the amount of experiences reported as religious in a world just like ours but without a god, or the amount of experiences reported as religious in a world just like ours but with a god.

But of course you cannot know which number our level of E's reported as religious matches. So you cannot discern whether our current amount of RE's are evidence of god, or no god.

Between these two, even in a Bayesian sense, RE's cannot be taken as evidentiary. They may be, they may not be, but we just don't have the data or knowledge to know either way. And the mere possibility that something may be evidence does not make it evidence.

John Powell

POWELL:
I've been extra busy the last few days. I'm sorry for the delay.

POWELL:
I did give an argument, Bobinius, but I didn't enumerate the propositions. Here.

1. A strong atheist is a person who believes that God does not exist.
2. John Powell is a person who believes that God does not exist.
Therefore
3. John Powell is a strong atheist.

Now, answer your own question (in better English): Why is it that God does not exist?

Since you claim to KNOW that God does not exist, surely you have the answer, yes?

POWELL:
I endeavor to be consistent. In my Bayesian model, both the atheist and theist agree that the probability of God rises given RE's so RE's constitute Bayesian evidence for the existence of God. Do you challenge the reasonableness of my model values? I'll repost them below.

Atheist and theist agree (for the sake of argument): P(G) = 0.5, P(RE in actual world) = 90%, P(fake RE in actual world) >= 9%

Atheist: P(RE/~G) = 90% (the actual world), P(fRE/~G) = 90%, P(RE/G) = 99%, P(fRE/G) = 1%.

Theist: P(RE/G) = 90% (the actual world), P(fRE/G) = 9%, P(RE/~G) = 50%, P(fRE/~G) = 50%.

POWELL:
Rather, I'm a supporter of AHD1 evidence and probabalistic associations, while you seem to require certain associations, things which follow with logical necessity.

POWELL:
Do I have to enumerate my propositions and separate the premises from the conclusion with the word "therefore" before you can identify my arguments, Bobinius?

POWELL:
Because I don't think there's enough evidence given the extraordinary value of the claim.

POWELL:
It has to do with what we consider to be facts.

POWELL:
A strong atheist is one who believes that God does not exist. A weak atheist is one who merely does not believe that God exists without going so far as to affirming that they believe that God does not exist. An agnostic is someone who doesn't know for sure. You can have agnostic theists (they believe God exists but don't know for sure ) and agnostic atheists (they don't believe that God exists but don't know for sure.).

I am a strong atheist because I believe that God does not exist. I'm also agnostic because I admit that I don't know for sure that God does not exist.

POWELL:
Then you are a gnostic strong atheist. What is the basis of your knowledge, your certainty that God does not exist? Surely, it's based on a proof like a sound deductive argument, yes?

POWELL:
Is it possible that you're wrong, Bobinius, or are you infallible about the question of God's existence?

Given that you're a gnostic strong atheist, Bobinius, your reluctance to concede that theists have any evidence for God makes more sense. For you to be CERTAIN that God does not exist, you think there can be no evidence for the contrary. If there were any little bit of evidence for the contrary then you would have to admit that you aren't CERTAIN, but at most something like "very confident".

POWELL:
I am. As you say below: "If you are a strong atheist you are asserting 'God does not exist' " Well, Bobinius, I say / assert that God does not exist. I am a strong atheist.

POWELL:
No it isn't. Theism / atheism have to do with BELIEF yea or nay. Gnosticism / agnosticism have to do with KNOWLEDGE, which in this case translates to certainty of belief.

Imagine a continuum of God belief from 0 to 100%. 0% corresponds to certainty that God does not exist. That's where you are as a gnostic strong atheist. 100% corresponds to certainty that God exists. That's where gnostic theists are. 50% is the dividing line between theists and atheists. Atheists are below 50%. Theists are above 50%. Self proclaimed agnostics who reject the atheist label are so close to 50% that they don't feel comfortable with either the atheist or theist label.

POWELL:
Sure I can. For J to believe and affirm that God does not exist does not necessarily mean that J knows for sure. Whether I have a burden depends on whether I'm trying to persuade someone to believe as I do. The definition of theist / atheist does NOT include some requirement about burden. A person who believes that God exists, but never takes any burden to prove it, is nevertheless a theist.

POWELL:
I'm not a weak atheist, Bobinius, since I go further than merely saying "It's not the case that I believe that God exists." I believe that God does not exist. Certainty about this is a separate issue having to do with gnosticism / agnosticism. I wish to take the burden for my beliefs rather than hide behind the weak position "I'm not saying yea or nay to your God belief, but you prove it to me."

POWELL:
I am a strong atheist, Bobinius, by your own definition (less the requirement concerning burden of proof). I'm not a GNOSTIC strong atheist as you are.

POWELL:
I satisfy what I understand to be the definition. What is your definition of a strong atheist? Is it someone who affirms that God does not exist? If yes, then I satisfy that. Is is someone who KNOWS FOR CERTAIN that God does not exist? If yes, then I don't satisfy that one.

POWELL:
I've given arguments, Bobinius. Your inability to see them doesn't change the truth value. Because of your difficulty finding my arguments, I enumerated the propositions and put a "therefore" between the premises and the conclusion in an important argument above.

POWELL:
Then PROVE, via a sound deductive argument that theists are irrational to believe that God exists. Also PROVE, via an argument that all competent persons will agree to be sound, that God does not exist. You KNOW FOR SURE that God does not exist, Bobinius, so surely you have such an argument.

POWELL:
If you have to beg the question of what constitutes evidence then you're going to have a hard time composing an argument that I will consider to be sound.

How many dictionaries need to define evidence to be as I've been using it before it's true? One? The majority? All of them? Wouldn't you consider that to be an ad populum argument to require more than one qualified source? Would the fact that Oxford has a different definition than the American Heritage change the truth value as to what is "evidence"?

POWELL:
IMO, you're being too restrictive as to what you consider to be evidence and it appears to me you're doing this partly to strengthen a kind of glass tower upon which you have placed your certainty that God does not exist. If you allow theists to have any evidence whatsoever for God then your metaphorical tower collapses and you have to admit that you don't know for sure that God does not exist.

John Powell

KleinGordon

John,
It might be awhile before I can respond to you - I'm in the middle of something, but I just want you to know that I'll get back to you when I can.

Also, you should be aware that you and Bobinius are not agreeing on "strong atheist" perhaps because he defines it differently. Bobinius quite consistently says that agnostic is incompatible with strong atheist because he defines a strong atheist as someone who knows that God does not exist. I think.