tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post6213086292658445427..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: On AETV todayUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77685305174734724202010-04-11T13:54:46.588-05:002010-04-11T13:54:46.588-05:00Does this mean Ali will not be calling the show?Does this mean Ali will not be calling the show?John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57042708299076494682010-04-11T10:01:52.523-05:002010-04-11T10:01:52.523-05:00part 2
To be honest, I don't see the differenc...<b>part 2</b><br /><i>To be honest, I don't see the difference. To say that "the default position for claims is disbelief" is no different than saying "Claims need to be justified in order to be believed". </i><br /><br />There is a huge difference. For one thing, the claim: 'Claims do not need to be justified in order to be believed' does not contradict the statement 'the default position is disbelief'.<br /><br />You can believe in something with absolutely no justification whatsoever - that makes no difference to what the default position actually is.<br /><br /><i>A lack of knowledge is not something, however. Rocks, trees, etc. also lack knowledge. I don't see how they can have "positions".</i><br /><br />A 'position' in the sense you are using it is one that requires cognitive ability. The reason, then, that rocks lack 'positions' is not because they lack knowledge, but because they lack cognitive faculties.<br /><br />Because I am not expecting to reply again, I do not expect you to reply again. Honestly, I feel like this is going nowhere, and that nothing I can say will alter that.<br /><br />Thanks for the conversation, and apologies for my irritability in this post.<br /><br />Bye,<br /><br />Afterthought_btwAfterthought_btwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758975616219512727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68339324769719716392010-04-11T09:59:06.006-05:002010-04-11T09:59:06.006-05:00Ali,
I suspect this may be my last post, because ...<b>Ali</b>,<br /><br />I suspect this may be my last post, because I honestly feel like I am hitting my head against a brick wall. That is one of the reasons I have not replied before now. That and I've been (and still am) ill.<br /><br /><i>"This is true, but it does tell us we have to disbelieve all claims since that is the "default"."</i><br /><br />No it does not. Honestly, if we haven't got past this point yet, it's not surprising I'm losing my patience.<br /><br />Whether or not <b><i>D</i></b> says anything is irrelevant to what we 'have to' or 'should' believe. This is because it is not a prescriptive statememnt. Prescriptive statements tell you what to do. Descriptive statements tell you what is the case. How much more do I have to say this?<br /><br />Example of a prescriptive statement:<br /><br />"I should put the kettle on."<br /><br />Example of a descriptive statement.<br /><br />"The kettle has boiling water inside."<br /><br /><i>A tautology and an infinite regress are two different things. A tautology does not tell us that we have to provide justification for something. This is a problem of justification. </i><br /><br />Err... what? Please, go back and read what I wrote. This does not address anything I said. Look, I'll sum up what's been said:<br /><br />You claimed that the trivially true statement with an infinite regress that I offered did not pose a problem because it was a tautology. I pointed out that you can only claim it is a tautology by utilising the tools of logic. What you were actually saying, in its simplest form, was: 'this statement is logically true, therefore infinite regress does not pose a problem'.<br /><br />Or in other words, to assume that an infinite regress causes a problem for a statement is to presuppose that it is logically untrue.<br /><br />That's circular reasoning.<br /><br />Now you could apply the regress problem to the entirety of epistemology, and hence also logic (and thus also invalidating your claim that being a tautology saves the trivially true statement from an infinite regress), but you obviously don't want to do that, because that would also strip away any possible justification for believing in a god. It strips away any justification for believing in anything.<br /><br /><i>"But in this situation I don't see how that changes anything. It is necessary and the case that certain things need to be justified. The claim being made is that the default position is disbelief for claims. If this is not telling us what we should do, then what's the point of this statement? Why should I accept this to be the case?"</i><br /><br />I'm really starting to wonder if you understand what the phrase: 'default position' actually means. <br /><br />Another way you could describe the default position would be the <i>automatic</i> position. That is, the position that is held without any information known about a claim.<br /><br />Once you are given possible information about a claim, you examine the information. If the information is valid, then you change your position accordingly, if the information is invalid, then you discard it, meaning that you are once more in a position of knowing <i>no information about a claim</i> - the default position.<br /><br />The reason you should accept that the default position is disbelief is simple, and I have mentioned before.<br /><br />It is logically impossible to perform an action upon a nonexistent thing. Therefore it is not possible to believe a statement before you have knowledge of its existence. (Unless the statement exists, you are trying to perform an action (believe) upon a nonexistent thing. Or, if you prefer, the act of belief requires a target. If the target does not exist, you cannot believe in it.)Afterthought_btwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758975616219512727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38405206324650691442010-04-11T09:49:51.664-05:002010-04-11T09:49:51.664-05:00I think we lost him...I think we lost him...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987893977574176129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28773240446489641022010-04-09T09:17:44.266-05:002010-04-09T09:17:44.266-05:00Ali,
I think this is a fundamental flaw in yo...Ali,<br /><br /> <b><i>I think this is a fundamental flaw in your perception of naturally disposed beliefs. The fact is, that the whole concept of evidence itself is predicated on the belief that the world around us is real. You cannot show this to be the case. If you start off believing that that the external world may not be real and that you need evidence of this, you've already shot yourself in the foot because the external world includes the very thing you call evidence.<br /><br /> It's something you must assume.</i></b><br /><br />We believe reality exists because from the second we are conscious we are bombarded with sensory evidence that it exists. I would have to assume someone born with no senses would have a very different view of reality. We have a lifetime of evidence to believe that the world is real, and oftentimes evidence that what we thought was real was not so. <br /><br /><br /><b><i> Then why do you have a belief regarding the default position, since by definition of the default, this is not a default?</i></b><br /><br /><br />Because it has been shown true in every single instance of acceptance or rejection of a claim. <br /><br /><br /><b><i> I have. I just don't understand how you can claim that a lack of a position is a position in and of itself. Like I asked others, do you believe rocks and trees have positions since they too "do not know"?<br /><br /> To say "I don't know" is to not say anything in regard to the claim being made; it is merely an acknowledgment of not knowing what to believe.</i></b><br /><br /><br />Acknowledging that you do not know what to believe <b>is</b> a valid position. <br /><br /><b><i>Just as I pointed out with Skeptical Rationalist, even the Law of Excluded Middle does not count "I don't know" as a position of negation of P. (P or not P) does not include "I don't know". Either P is true or the negation of P is true. Nothing is true about lacking knowledge. <br />...<br />But that's not what the formula is saying. It is saying that P is NOT the case because something contrary to it is.</i></b><br /><br />You are confusing the truth of a claim with your position on the claim.<br />P is either true or not true. However, my position on P can be "Yes, it's true", "No, it's false", or "I don't know". <br /><br /><b><i>The problem I have here is that if it is a descriptive phrase (as I have pointed out with AfterthoughtM) then it is false, because axioms are excluded from this.</i></b> <br /><br />They're really not... we just choose to accept them because the alternative is unworkable.<br /><br /><b><i>If you are just saying "Hey, when we are born we don't believe anything", then I'd agree, but I don't see how that has anything to do with claims or beliefs having to be verified to be believed in. It seems pointless to say this. I can just as easily say that "The belief in default positions is disbelieved at birth". Okay? So what? Making it a descriptive statement makes it useless. What's the point then?</i></b><br /><br />Being aware of how we come to accept our beliefs is not useless. It is only through this knowledge that we can have any real assurance that what we believe is true. <br /><br /><b><i>I do. I say it does not serve as a substitution for evidence because it is believed before evidence is even considered. Meaning, without these beliefs, "evidence" doesn't make any sense. </i></b><br /><br />One paragraph ago you acknowledged that we are born with no beliefs. When presented with a claim you do not instantly accept of reject it. You examine it first. Your predispositions may push you towards acceptance or rejection based on what "feels" right, but this is merely a cognitive shortcut to avoid time consuming investigation.<br /><br />I'll give you an example: My car is red. Do you accept or reject that claim. Pay attention to your cognitive process while you are deciding.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987893977574176129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75234381022747287282010-04-09T06:17:28.200-05:002010-04-09T06:17:28.200-05:00Ali:
Reread my post. It is you who are mischarac...Ali:<br /><br />Reread my post. It is you who are mischaracterizing.<br /><br />You are conflating two things and treating them as though they were the same: <br /> - that there are two possibilities for the truth value (P and ~P)<br />AND<br /> - positions one may have regarding that statement.<br /><br />I can't say it more clearly: if you are willing to sign on to the truth of the claim, and say YES, I believe "P" is true, then that is one position.<br /><br /><i>It does not follow</i> that the only other position possible is "I don't know" or affirmatively believing the negation, if you don't know, then "I don't believe it" is an accurate description of your position. It is therefore properly classed in the "disbelief" category. That is why the default position is necessarily some flavor of disbelief. <br /><br />It seems to me that the rest of your argument hinges on this statement:<br /><br /><i>But this is clearly false simply on the basis that not all claims are approached in this manner. No one says "I don't know" about axioms. No one goes around claiming "I don't know" for the simple claim that "we can know things about the world", because if they really believed this then they would never be able to really justify it.</i><br /><br />I addressed this point, you just either glossed over it or ignored me.<br /><br />The fact that we grant some basic axioms about our environment and our ability to understand it does not mean that all naturally disposed beliefs should be taken as true until proven false. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mundane and simple claims require mundane and simple evidence.<br /><br />It seems to me that your argument basically boils down to "because you have to accept your senses and cognition as naturally disposed, other naturally disposed beliefs are equally valid, such as theism." <br /><br />If this is an accurate assessment of you position, I'll continue the next time I'm able to post.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28591476463155581302010-04-09T00:08:54.938-05:002010-04-09T00:08:54.938-05:00Curious (P2),
Just as I pointed out with Skeptica...<b>Curious (P2)</b>,<br /><br />Just as I pointed out with <b>Skeptical Rationalist</b>, even the Law of Excluded Middle does not count "I don't know" as a position of negation of P. (P or not P) does not include "I don't know". Either P is true or the negation of P is true. Nothing is <i>true</i> about lacking knowledge. It can be said that it is true that you don't know, but <i>not</i> about the position at hand.<br /><br />For instance. If I say (P or not P) and plug in "theism" as (P), then all we're saying is (theism or not theism). The Law, however, clearly states that either P is true or its negation is. It's negation, however, cannot both include "I don't know" and an explicit disbelief. <br /><br />If I say "there is 20 dollars in my pocket", this is not considered not true on the basis of "I don't know". When you say "I don't know" you are merely saying "I don't know if it's true or NOT". So basically, you are saying "I don't know if (P or not P). If you were to accept that (not P) can be "I don't know" you are also saying that whatever else is (not P) is unknown as well. <br /><br />But that's not what the formula is saying. It is saying that P is NOT the case because something <i>contrary</i> to it <i>is</i>.<br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>"As has been explained to you before, the default position does not lead to infinite regress because it has no inherent truth statement about itself. It is a descriptive phrase. "</i><br /><br />The problem I have here is that if it is a descriptive phrase (as I have pointed out with <b>AfterthoughtM</b>) then it is false, because axioms are excluded from this. If you are just saying "Hey, when we are born we don't believe anything", then I'd agree, but I don't see how that has anything to do with claims or beliefs having to be verified to be believed in. It seems pointless to say this. I can just as easily say that "The belief in default positions is disbelieved at birth". Okay? So what? Making it a descriptive statement makes it useless. What's the point then?<br /><br /><i>"You began your argument by saying that our predisposed beliefs are the default position. My rebuttal to that is that predisposition serves as a substitute for evidence when choosing whether to accept a claim. Do you have a response to this?"</i><br /><br />I do. I say it does not serve as a substitution for evidence because it is believed before evidence is even considered. Meaning, without these beliefs, "evidence" doesn't make any sense.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65875307565943245912010-04-09T00:08:54.939-05:002010-04-09T00:08:54.939-05:00Curious,
You say:
"You seem to be having a ...<b>Curious</b>,<br /><br />You say:<br /><br /><i>"You seem to be having a terminology failure. Accepting that the world around us is real has immediate and tangible benefits. Accepting that it is real based on these benefits does nothing to change the default position. We are assaulted with evidence every moment of our lives that the world around us is real. It is this feedback that causes us to accept that there is an objective reality."</i><br /><br />I think this is a fundamental flaw in your perception of naturally disposed beliefs. The fact is, that the whole concept of <i>evidence</i> itself is predicated on the belief that the world around us is real. You cannot show this to be the case. If you start off believing that that the external world may not be real and that you need evidence of this, you've already shot yourself in the foot because the external world <i>includes</i> the very thing you call <i>evidence</i>.<br /><br />It's something you must assume.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Not believing is the default position. Being born without belief in default positions is entirely what one would expect."</i><br /><br />Then why do you have a <i>belief</i> regarding the default position, since by definition of the default, this is <i>not</i> a default?<br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>""I don't know" is not nothing. <br /><br />I feel as though you have not read a single thing I wrote... "</i><br /><br />I have. I just don't understand how you can claim that a lack of a position is a position in and of itself. Like I asked others, do you believe rocks and trees have positions since they too "do not know"?<br /><br />To say "I don't know" is to not say anything in regard to the claim being made; it is merely an acknowledgment of not knowing what to believe.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12114095112895203412010-04-08T20:59:22.986-05:002010-04-08T20:59:22.986-05:00Ali,
This is exactly what I'm saying, because...Ali,<br /><br /><b><i>This is exactly what I'm saying, because we are forced to in order to function in this world and to obtain knowledge. These are foundational beliefs that if not accepted off the bat render knowledge and survivability impossible. </i></b><br /><br />You seem to be having a terminology failure. Accepting that the world around us is real has immediate and tangible benefits. Accepting that it is real based on these benefits does nothing to change the default position. We are assaulted with evidence every moment of our lives that the world around us is real. It is this feedback that causes us to accept that there is an objective reality. <br /><br /><br /><b><i>The problem is, as I stated before, that no one is born with believing in default positions either.</i></b><br /><br />Not believing is the default position. Being born without belief in default positions is entirely what one would expect.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>So if "I don't know" is the default, then we must necessarily claim "I don't know" for the default position claim itself. We cannot make a "default" that which is nothing. </i></b><br /><br />"I don't know" is not nothing. <br /><br />I feel as though you have not read a single thing I wrote... <br /><br />As has been explained to you before, the default position does not lead to infinite regress because it has no inherent truth statement about itself. It is a descriptive phrase. <br /><br />You began your argument by saying that our predisposed beliefs are the default position. My rebuttal to that is that predisposition serves as a substitute for evidence when choosing whether to accept a claim. Do you have a response to this?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987893977574176129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-729024689825013312010-04-08T20:51:17.217-05:002010-04-08T20:51:17.217-05:00Skeptical Rationalist (P2),
Also, if you're a...<b>Skeptical Rationalist (P2)</b>,<br /><br />Also, if you're attempting to plug in the positions of <i>theism</i> and <i>implicit atheism</i> into the formulation of the Law of Excluded Middle, I'm afraid that isn't going to work.<br /><br />In the case of the formula (P ∨ ¬P), P is the <i>same</i>. The distinction is with "¬" being an active negation.<br /><br />So you can't say (Theism or "I don't know" Theism). <br /><br />It's (Theism or <b>¬</b> Theism), as in whether the claim is <i>true or false</i>. From Wikipedia:<br /><br /><i>"In logic, The Law of excluded middle, also known as the Principle of excluded middle or Excluded middle is the principle that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is."</i><br /><br />I'm not a big fan of wikipedia, but since it's the fad these days I didn't think you'd mind me using it as a reference. If you'd like a better one later on, feel free to ask.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46493706752292641992010-04-08T19:07:19.750-05:002010-04-08T19:07:19.750-05:00Skeptical Rationalist,
You state the following:
...<b>Skeptical Rationalist</b>,<br /><br />You state the following: <br /><br /><i>"No, no, no, no, no. True and False are the two possibilities of the truth value. This is the fundamental misunderstanding you are exhibiting and every time I try and clarify this for you, you claim I'm mischaracterizing your argument. <br /><br />Positions are nearly infinite. <br /><br />If you believe the claim is true and are willing to say "Yes, SR has a $20 bill in his wallet" then we will call this position "Theism."<br /><br />Anything else, including but not limited to:<br />"I don't know"<br />"SR has a *check* for $20"<br />"SR has two $10's"<br />"SR has a debit card and $20 in the bank"<br /><br />...are disbelief positions and are properly classed, being "not Theistic" as Atheistic. The fact that you can believe anything you want is irrelevant to the True/False dichotomy."</i><br /><br />The fact that you think "I don't know" is part of that dichotomy is what I find incorrect. <br /><br />The Law of Excluded Middle states the following: P ∨ ¬P (P or not P). So it's either <i>yes</i>/<i>no (active)</i> or <i>true</i>/<i>false</i>. Each are active forms of belief or disbelief, not <i>I don't know</i>. The <i>I don't know</i> "position" you keep referring to doesn't exist in this formulation. The blunt fact is, "I don't know" is <i>not</i> a position. It is a state where someone is still trying to decide whether their position is P ∨ ¬P.<br /><br />In fact, arguing that it <i>is</i> a position of disbelief renders it under the <i>false</i> stance, which is exactly what you are <i>not</i> arguing for. <br /><br />You then go on to say:<br /><br /><i>I love how believers love to trot out the "rational faculties" argument. In point of fact, the correspondence of our rational faculties to reality is marked by how little they correspond with reality. That is the very reason we have such mechanisms as peer-review, trial by jury, the scientific method, even the revolutionary technology of written language, all making a concerted effort to boil out the biases and overcome the shortcomings of humans' flawed, merely-adequate faculties of sense, cognition, judgment and memory. They are replete with shortcuts, inaccuracies, improvisations, extrapolations, and it's a fascinating area of neuroscience that studies them. Again I recommend Mistakes Were Made if you want an accessible read on the foibles of cognition."</i><br /><br />I think you've given up the argument here. It's clear that none of the above examples would be possible (peer review etc. ) if we did not think that something could be obtained to begin with through those faculties. Obviously we are prone to error, but we believe we can fix these errors because we believe (without evidence) that our rational faculties are somehow reliable. This is not proven in science or anything else for that matter. It's just something we accept for the sake of knowledge.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Repeating an assertion does not make it true. You're so fractally wrong on this point that it beggars belief."</i><br /><br />You haven't shown me that I am "factually wrong". You simply keep repeating yourself. <br /><br /><i>"Naturally disposed beliefs are about the *last* claims you should accept without at least token corroboration, the evidence required being commensurate with the claim being made. <br />"</i><br /><br />The very fact that you even believe in evidence without needing evidence for that belief should be evidence enough for you that you're incorrect here. <br /><br />That's all that need be said. When you present an argument (as the others have attempted to do), then I will reconsider your statements.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50203092262101991432010-04-08T18:51:53.094-05:002010-04-08T18:51:53.094-05:00Afterthought,
You state the following:
"So...<b>Afterthought</b>,<br /><br />You state the following:<br /><br /><br /><i>"So you should see why your contention about the default position is not valid. Claim D also does not force us to accept the belief on the basis of <br />whether or not it is true."</i><br /><br />This is true, but it does tell us we have to disbelieve all claims since that is the "default".<br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /> <i>"This, to an extent, is what I have been getting at with prescriptive and descriptive statements. (Aside: also, you can only say that it is a tautology, because of the laws of logic. You have in essence actually agreed with me by calling it such.)"</i><br /><br />A tautology and an infinite regress are two different things. A tautology does not tell us that we have to provide justification for something. This is a problem of justification. <br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>"Claim D does not tell us what we should do, it tells us what is the case (the same way a statement must be true or not true)."</i><br /><br />But in this situation I don't see how that changes anything. It is necessary <i>and</i> the case that certain things need to be justified. The claim being made is that the <i>default position is disbelief for claims</i>. If this is not telling us what we <i>should</i> do, then what's the point of this statement? Why should I accept this to <i>be the case</i>? <br /><br /><br /><i>"The above may be correct. I'm not necessarily convinced it is, but let's say it is. I don't really care too much either way. The thing is you are continuously arguing against a strawman whenever you include the bolded words above. It's not a position anyone I know holds. I know (of) people who hold that you should only believe a claim if it is warranted to do so, and I also know (of) people who accept that the default position upon a claim is disbelief, but I know no-one who mish-mashes those two things together as one."</i><br /><br />To be honest, I don't see the difference. To say that "the default position for claims is disbelief" is no different than saying "Claims need to be justified in order to be believed". <br /><br /><br /><i>"The former is a pragmatic belief, the latter a descriptive logical statement. One does not lead to the other."</i><br /><br />What I'm trying to figure out is how making it a descriptive statement somehow takes away from the real problem here. The fact of the matter is that atheists say that the "default position" for any claim given to them is "I don't know". But this is clearly false simply on the basis that not all claims are approached in this manner. No one says "I don't know" about axioms. No one goes around claiming "I don't know" for the simple claim that "we can know things about the world", because if they really believed this then they would never be able to really justify it. <br /><br />Like I said, it seems to me that making the "default position" a mere descriptive statement makes it pointless to claim in a rational discussion where one person is asking for evidence. I never see atheists using it in the descriptive sense. Ever.<br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>" Actually, not only is "I don't know" a position, it is also merely a subposition of disbelief. This should be obvious:<br /><br />If you don't know something, then you can not believe in that something. If you do not believe in something then you disbelieve in it. "Do you believe?" is a binary question - you either believe, or you don't."</i><br /><br />I do happen to believe that there are two different forms of disbelief: One predicated on a lack of knowledge and one predicated on some other position. <br /><br />A lack of knowledge is not something, however. Rocks, trees, etc. also lack knowledge. I don't see how they can have "positions".Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47927001101556195612010-04-08T18:40:01.587-05:002010-04-08T18:40:01.587-05:00Curious,
You say:
"The main thrust of my a...<b>Curious</b>,<br /><br />You say:<br /><br /><br /><i>"The main thrust of my argument is thus:<br /><br />You seem to be saying that due to our predisposition to believe certain claims, this makes the default position on those claims to be "Acceptance". This is incorrect."</i><br /><br />This is exactly what I'm saying, because we are forced to in order to function in this world and to obtain knowledge. These are foundational beliefs that if not accepted off the bat render knowledge and survivability impossible. <br /><br /><i>"The predisposition to believe certain claims does nothing to change the default position. It only serves to provide unjustified evidence to move from withholding judgment to acceptance. These predispositions can come from a variety of sources, but they all have the same effect: Circumventing more rigorous evidence based assessment.<br /><br />This is sufficiently fundamental that I see no point in arguing further until we come to some agreement on this point."</i><br /><br />The problem is, as I stated before, that no one is born with believing in default positions either. So if "I don't know" is the default, then we must necessarily claim "I don't know" for the default position claim itself. We cannot make a "default" that which is nothing.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71045574432687836692010-04-08T16:30:42.711-05:002010-04-08T16:30:42.711-05:00It's interesting that you tell me about the La...<i>It's interesting that you tell me about the Law of Excluded Middle, yet try to provide a middle position for a proposition (the "I don't know" position).</i><br /><br />No, no, no, no, no. True and False are the two possibilities of the truth value. This is the fundamental misunderstanding you are exhibiting and every time I try and clarify this for you, you claim I'm mischaracterizing your argument. <br /><br /><i>Positions</i> are nearly infinite. <br /><br />If you <b>believe the claim is true</b> and are willing to say "Yes, SR has a $20 bill in his wallet" then we will call this position "Theism."<br /><br /><b>Anything else,</b> including but not limited to:<br />"I don't know"<br />"SR has a *check* for $20"<br />"SR has two $10's"<br />"SR has a debit card and $20 in the bank"<br /><br />...are <b>disbelief</b> positions and are properly classed, being "not Theistic" as <i>Atheistic.</i> The fact that you can believe anything you want is irrelevant to the True/False dichotomy.<br /><br /><i>You are naturally disposed to believing that your rational faculties and sensory faculties actually correspond with reality. Now tell me, are you going to not accept this out of hand till this is proven to you to be the case? </i><br /><br />I love how believers love to trot out the "rational faculties" argument. In point of fact, the correspondence of our rational faculties to reality is marked by how <i>little</i> they correspond with reality. That is the very reason we have such mechanisms as peer-review, trial by jury, the scientific method, even the revolutionary technology of <i>written language</i>, all making a concerted effort to boil out the biases and overcome the shortcomings of humans' flawed, merely-adequate faculties of sense, cognition, judgment and memory. They are replete with shortcuts, inaccuracies, improvisations, extrapolations, and it's a fascinating area of neuroscience that studies them. Again I recommend <i>Mistakes Were Made</i> if you want an accessible read on the foibles of cognition.<br /><br /><i>Naturally disposed beliefs do not require evidence to support themselves. They do, however, require evidence to be proven incorrect (which they can be).</i><br /><br />Repeating an assertion does not make it true. You're so <i>fractally wrong</i> on this point that it beggars belief. Naturally disposed beliefs are about the *last* claims you should accept without at least token corroboration, the evidence required being commensurate with the claim being made. <br /><br />What may be confusing you is that quite often, the corroborating evidence is so effortlessly obtained that it may even be unconscious--if it looks like a duck AND quacks like a duck, you're fairly justified in thinking it's a duck--if you notice that it's not moving on its own, and there's a man in the reeds with a shotgun and a big wooden kazoo, then perhaps not. But there's an entire universe between the claim "That is a duck" and "An invisible bodiless immortal is responsible for all of existence." I'm going to need more to go on for that last one. Just because people who grow up in religion-steeped societies have an irrational tendency to believe that does <b>not</b> make it deserve the benefit of the doubt on its own.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22818824824252219632010-04-08T14:40:13.312-05:002010-04-08T14:40:13.312-05:00Ali
I made a very long post adressing yours. when...Ali<br /><br />I made a very long post adressing yours. when I posted however my internet connection failed. I have no way of knowing if I actually posted yet so if my answer doesn't show up you might have to wait for me to re-post it. just a heads up.Fritshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10283591813641507318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37435997235244143632010-04-08T08:28:59.344-05:002010-04-08T08:28:59.344-05:00Ali
No problem for the wait.
You say:
"No...<b>Ali</b><br /><br />No problem for the wait.<br /><br />You say: <br /><br /><i>"Not at all. I reject that it leads to an infinite regression because the claim is not forcing us to accept the belief on the basis of whether or not it is true. It's just a tautology."</i><br /><br />So you should see why your contention about the default position is not valid. Claim <b><i>D</i></b> also does not force us to accept the belief on the basis of whether or not it is true. This, to an extent, is what I have been getting at with prescriptive and descriptive statements. (Aside: also, you can only say that it is a tautology, because of the laws of logic. You have in essence actually agreed with me by calling it such.)<br /><br />Claim <b><i>D</i></b> does not tell us what we should do, it tells us what is the case (the same way a statement must be true or not true). It does not require us to do anything, nor does it give any information upon whether or not the claim is true.<br /><br />You are caught up with trying to create an infinite regress by saying things like 'we must disbelieve the claim <b><i>D</i></b>' or 'we have to apply <b><i>D</i></b> to itself' (paraphrasing), which are prescriptive statements. <b><i>D</i></b>, however, says no such thing. (This is why your response to <b><i>D</i></b>: "In which case I have to disbelieve it" is wrong. <b><i>D</i></b> doesn't say you must disbelieve it, it merely says that until you come to a conclusion upon the validity of <b><i>D</i></b> you <i>don't</i> believe it. Which is a truism/tautology, really.)<br /><br />You keep re-adding the words I keep taking out. Please stop doing that, it will make things so much clearer for you! :) Plus, as I said last reply, it is really rather frustrating from my point of view. I will bold the words in the following quote from you that you are basing your argument upon. These words turn the statement from a descriptive statement, into a prescriptive statement. <br /><br /><i>"The problem with the claim "The default position is disbelief <b>until belief is warranted</b>" is that it forces us to warrant every claim. Even if you try to claim it is merely "descriptive" and not "prescriptive" (though I still don't see how you can do this), it still forces us to disbelief every single claim for the sake of the "default"."</i><br /><br />The above may be correct. I'm not necessarily convinced it is, but let's say it is. I don't really care too much either way. The thing is you are continuously arguing against a strawman whenever you include the bolded words above. It's not a position anyone I know holds. I know (of) people who hold that you should only believe a claim if it is warranted to do so, and I also know (of) people who accept that the default position upon a claim is disbelief, but I know no-one who mish-mashes those two things together as one.<br /><br />The former is a pragmatic belief, the latter a descriptive logical statement. One does not lead to the other.<br /><br />Also, you said to Skeptical Rationalist:<br /><br /><i>"Of course, but we don't call "I dont know" a position."</i><br /><br />Actually, not only <i>is</i> "I don't know" a position, it is also merely a subposition of disbelief. This should be obvious:<br /><br />If you don't know something, then you can not believe in that something. If you do not believe in something then you disbelieve in it. "Do you believe?" is a binary question - you either believe, or you don't.Afterthought_btwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758975616219512727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31637674489250330242010-04-08T06:02:59.507-05:002010-04-08T06:02:59.507-05:00Skeptical Rationalist,
You say:
"Look up th...<b>Skeptical Rationalist</b>,<br /><br />You say:<br /><br /><i>"Look up the Law of the Excluded Middle. In essence, valid Truth Statements either are True OR False."</i><br /><br />I'm already aware of it.<br /><br /><i>"For a truth statement such as "I have $20 in my wallet," if your position is "I don't know," then you are not accepting the claim as true. Congratulations, if God were a $20 bill, you're an atheist."</i><br /><br />It's interesting that you tell me about the Law of Excluded Middle, yet try to provide a middle position for a proposition (the "I don't know" position). <br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>""Disbelief" as a default position does not mean that you necessarily believe the claim *is* false. That's why, even though the colloquialism is "innocent until proven guilty," that the jury votes on the claim of guilt: either guilty or not guilty. Not, I repeat, NOT, Guilty/Innocent."</i><br /><br />Besides the fact that legal theory is not a determinant for what is rationally acceptable or not in philosophical discourse, I <i>never</i> claimed that the default position (as proposed by atheists) necessarily renders the claim <i>false</i>. I don't know why you keep objecting to positions I never adopted. <br /><br /><i>"I'll easily give you naturally disposed beliefs that should not be believed--go read Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) by Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson. It's not a religious book by any means, it's about how cognitive dissonance and self-justification lead to an absolute carnival of mental adjustments and beliefs with only a passing relationship to reality. Jacques Duvalier, the dictator for life, literally thought himself the man who brought Democracy to Haiti. George W. Bush, unable to even see his errors in the face of concrete evidence he was dead wrong about Iraqi WMD. Divorcing spouses, each with a laundry list of reasons why the other is at fault. The list of "naturally disposed," false beliefs is endless."</i><br /><br />Besides that fact that some of the examples given are questionable as naturally disposed beliefs, I have clearly stated throughout this discussion that naturally disposed beliefs <i>can</i> be wrong, but not <i>all</i> naturally disposed beliefs are.<br /><br />You then stated:<br /><br /><i>"I am hard-pressed to come up with a worse standard for truth than what we are "naturally disposed" to believe. It's a ludicrous standard. Knowing how pathetically unreliable natural dispositions to be, it is far more reasonable to withhold your belief to claims until you have *good* reasons to assent."</i><br /><br />Okay, let's do a test then to see how "ludicrous" this really is. <br /><br />You are naturally disposed to believing that your rational faculties and sensory faculties actually correspond with reality. Now tell me, are you going to not accept this out of hand till this is proven to you to be the case? Be careful how you answer. If you say that you will not accept this at first until it is proven to you then you've basically shot yourself in the foot because you are assuming that somehow this evidence can be <i>rationally apprehended</i>. If you've already called into question this naturally disposed belief, then you have no foundation by which to judge it. <br /><br />Naturally disposed beliefs do not require evidence to support themselves. They do, however, require evidence to be proven incorrect (which they can be).Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17399120046213030572010-04-08T05:48:07.491-05:002010-04-08T05:48:07.491-05:00Frits,
Thank you for your response. You say:
I t...<b>Frits</b>,<br /><br />Thank you for your response. You say:<br /><br /><i>I think you misunderstand one fundamental part of the argument (or you just don't want to hear it). You just claimed that 'I don't know' is no position at all. Throughout this debate many people have tried to tell you that the default position is 'I don't know', and that this is a position of disbelief. For example, in the aforementioned example of the 20 bucks which might or might not be in a wallet, you quite reasonably say I don't know. This implies that you don't believe anything about the contents of the wallet until you have actually looked inside the wallet and see whether there is or is not 20 dollars in there. So you lack believe that either there is or there isn't any money inside the wallet until you have further data to confirm whether either claim is true. This is a position of disbelief. You don't believe anything about the contents of the wallet cause you don't have enough data to make a useful judgment about it (which you acknowledge by stating 'I don't know')."</i><br /><br />The fact is that no one ever claims to have a position of "I don't know". People <i>do</i>, however claim to believe that they may not have a position on a particular claim. As one of our other friends pointed out previously about the Law of the Excluded Middle, a statement is either <i>true</i> or <i>false</i> and can only be accepted as such. A position on the statement cannot be "I don't know". If this were the case, then we'd likewise have to admit that rocks, trees, etc. also have positions because they don't know either. Lack of knowledge is not a position, a stance, it's a <i>state</i>. And if we want to show that the default position is a state of "I don't know", then we need to reject the belief in default positions themselves for the sake of this state.<br /><br /><i>"I don't think I can make it clearer than this, and honestly, if you truly cannot follow this logic, I think you are either not very smart (which I don't believe to be the case) or your motives for misunderstanding this point are suspect."</i><br /><br />I appreciate the compliment, but at the same time I don't think my motives are somehow negative. I understand quite well what is being argued against me and I reject it because I do not see "I don't know" as a position (rather it is a lack thereof). Further, I do not acknowledge that rationality or any sort of default stance can be predicated on a lack of a position or stance because no argument or belief can be supported by a lack of belief.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53650358513596741242010-04-07T08:21:16.047-05:002010-04-07T08:21:16.047-05:00Ali,
Then naturally I have to disbelieve you :)
...Ali,<br /><br /><b><i>Then naturally I have to disbelieve you :)</i></b><br /><br />Cute :-P ;-)<br /><br />You seem to have missed my previous response to you (understandable, given the volume of responses you are dealing with).<br /><br />The main thrust of my argument is thus:<br /><br /><b>You seem to be saying that due to our predisposition to believe certain claims, this makes the default position on those claims to be "Acceptance". This is incorrect.<br /><br />The predisposition to believe certain claims does nothing to change the default position. It only serves to provide unjustified evidence to move from withholding judgment to acceptance. These predispositions can come from a variety of sources, but they all have the same effect: Circumventing more rigorous evidence based assessment.</b><br /><br />This is sufficiently fundamental that I see no point in arguing further until we come to some agreement on this point.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987893977574176129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22912817725828494342010-04-07T06:14:11.987-05:002010-04-07T06:14:11.987-05:00Ali:
Look up the Law of the Excluded Middle. In...Ali: <br /><br />Look up the Law of the Excluded Middle. In essence, valid Truth Statements either are True OR False.<br /><br />For a truth statement such as "I have $20 in my wallet," if your position is "I don't know," then you are <i>not accepting the claim as true.</i> Congratulations, if God were a $20 bill, you're an atheist.<br /><br />"Disbelief" as a default position does <b>not</b> mean that you necessarily believe the claim *is* false. That's why, even though the colloquialism is "innocent until proven guilty," that the jury votes on the claim of guilt: either <i>guilty</i> or <i>not guilty.</i> Not, I repeat, NOT, Guilty/Innocent. <br /><br />I'll easily give you naturally disposed beliefs that should not be believed--go read <i>Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)</i> by Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson. It's not a religious book by any means, it's about how cognitive dissonance and self-justification lead to an absolute carnival of mental adjustments and beliefs with only a passing relationship to reality. Jacques Duvalier, the dictator for life, literally thought himself the man who brought Democracy to Haiti. George W. Bush, unable to even see his errors in the face of concrete evidence he was dead wrong about Iraqi WMD. Divorcing spouses, each with a laundry list of reasons why the other is at fault. The list of "naturally disposed," false beliefs is endless.<br /><br />I am hard-pressed to come up with a <b>worse</b> standard for truth than what we are "naturally disposed" to believe. It's a ludicrous standard. Knowing how pathetically unreliable natural dispositions to be, it is far more reasonable to withhold your belief to claims until you have *good* reasons to assent.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72057008814191275512010-04-07T03:02:29.048-05:002010-04-07T03:02:29.048-05:00Ali,
I think you misunderstand one fundamental pa...Ali,<br /><br />I think you misunderstand one fundamental part of the argument (or you just don't want to hear it). You just claimed that 'I don't know' is no position at all. Throughout this debate many people have tried to tell you that the default position is 'I don't know', and that this is a position of disbelief. For example, in the aforementioned example of the 20 bucks which might or might not be in a wallet, you quite reasonably say I don't know. This implies that you don't believe anything about the contents of the wallet until you have actually looked inside the wallet and see whether there is or is not 20 dollars in there. So you lack believe that either there is or there isn't any money inside the wallet until you have further data to confirm whether either claim is true. This is a position of disbelief. You don't believe anything about the contents of the wallet cause you don't have enough data to make a useful judgment about it (which you acknowledge by stating 'I don't know'). I don't think I can make it clearer than this, and honestly, if you truly cannot follow this logic, I think you are either not very smart (which I don't believe to be the case) or your motives for misunderstanding this point are suspect.<br /><br />Frits<br /><br />P.S. please excuse any grammatical or spelling errors since english is not my native language.Fritshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10283591813641507318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44440298656348602442010-04-07T00:33:28.580-05:002010-04-07T00:33:28.580-05:00Curious,
Then naturally I have to disbelieve you ...<b>Curious</b>,<br /><br />Then naturally I have to disbelieve you :)Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10619972060821929932010-04-06T21:18:27.630-05:002010-04-06T21:18:27.630-05:00Ali,
"The default position is disbelief unti...Ali,<br /><br /><b><i>"The default position is disbelief until belief is warranted"</i></b><br /><br />You keep adding those words. <b>The default position is disbelief.</b>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987893977574176129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62581270633296679232010-04-06T19:33:30.146-05:002010-04-06T19:33:30.146-05:00Skeptical Rationalist,
Thank you for your respons...<b>Skeptical Rationalist</b>,<br /><br />Thank you for your response. You say:<br /><br /><i>I'll give you a quick example to illustrate the point: "I have $20 in my wallet."<br /><br />Do you or do you not accept the claim as true?</i><br /><br />I don't know. Therefore, I don't have a position.<br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>"The problem of having a default position of "the default position is Belief until Disbelief is warranted" (with regards to naturally disposed claims) is that i puts one in a position to believe mutually contradictory claims. You missed the point about the singing trees--by your standards, you should believe the trees are singing as a default position."</i><br /><br />How is this the case? First off, I claimed rather early in this discussion that default positions can be abandoned if they are proven to be incorrect, so I don't have to believe singing trees at all. Secondly, please point out where naturally disposed beliefs are mutually contradictory claims. <br /><br /><i>"Default Disbelief itself is NOT A TRUTH CLAIM.<br /> It describes a position, and to whatever degree that position needs to be defended, you have been given ample reasons.</i>"<br /><br />Disbelief without a claim isn't a position at all. If someone ask you "What is your position on X" you don't say "My position is 'I don't know'" you say "I don't know what my position is".<br /><br /><i>"You said something very telling, though, "I find Islam to be supported by evidence." You haven't shared one shred of such with us; you have simply gone on the attack as though "we don't believe you" is some unsupportable and unreasonable position to have."</i><br /><br />I don't see how it's "telling" since I haven't been arguing for Islam, but just for general belief in God. <br /><br /><i>"It tells me you're not interested in actually demonstrating any claim of your own; this is nothing but a contemptible and dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof. "Claims should be accepted until disbelief is warranted" is semantically identical to "guilty until proven innocent.""</i><br /><br />That would be a nice assessment of my methods if it were what my methods were. Unfortunately, that's not my position, because I never was arguing for Islam. I think you've forgotten that a specific religious belief is not the same as a general belief in God. <br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>"You shouldn't convict someone of a crime if the prosecution can't make its case, you shouldn't believe I have money in my wallet until I open it and show you, and you sure as hell shouldn't believe in a god until justification is provided."</i><br /><br />Of course, but we don't call "I dont know" a position.<br /><br /><i>"Incidentally, quoting a peer-reviewed string of sources about how agency detection is somehow "naturally disposed" is NOT evidence that god exists, not when there are perfectly sound naturalistic explanations that DON'T require throwin an ommipotent bodiless immortal into the equation. You have only asserted without support that "naturally disposed" beliefs should be given credulity until disproved."</i><br /><br />Once again, you either don't understand my position or you're intentionally making a strawman. <br /><br />I never argued for the truth of gods existence, only that belief in god is a naturally disposed belief that doesn't require evidence.<br /><br />Big difference.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2126282929878216702010-04-06T19:26:06.091-05:002010-04-06T19:26:06.091-05:00Afterthought,
Sorry for taking so long. I've ...<b>Afterthought</b>,<br /><br />Sorry for taking so long. I've been busy. You say:<br /><br /><i>"Actually, I think I can show that an infinite regress is not a problem, and thus saving any need to continue to argue."</i><br /><br />Okay.<br /><br /><i>"The following is a trivially true statement, from which you can create an infinite regression.<br /><br />"All claims must be either true or not true."<br /><br />Now that claim either has to be true or not true, and that claim also has to be true or not true, and that claim also has to be...."</i><br /><br />I have no problem with this statement. I would only have a problem with it when inferring justification. For instance, if you said instead, "All claims must be either true or not true <i>to be accepted</i>" then we have issues. All the that the statement you have provided me with is a tautology. <br /><br /><i>"This follows from the laws of logic - the law of excluded middle to be precise. Now, you might immediately claim something like: 'But that is axiomatic, you have to prove that (D)the 'default position is disbelief' is"</i><br /><br />Not at all. I reject that it leads to an infinite regression because the claim is not forcing us to accept the belief on the basis of whether or not it is true. It's just a tautology. <br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><br /><i>"However, this would rather miss the point - anything in logic follows from the logical axioms, so if the claim D is logically true, then it would be in a identical situation to the above statement. <br /><br />The claim that infinite regression disproves D, could only be valid if you already assume that D is false."</i><br /><br /><br />The problem with the claim "The default position is disbelief until belief is warranted" is that it forces us to warrant every claim. Even if you try to claim it is merely "descriptive" and not "prescriptive" (though I still don't see how you can do this), it still forces us to disbelief every single claim for the sake of the "default".Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.com