DescentBB

Since fliptw mentioned that it should be stickied, I figured it was worth its own thread-space.

[youtube]T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]
[youtube]6OLPL5p0fMg[/youtube]

Enjoy!

Note: Requiring "proof" rather than "evidence" can be a tactic of the closed-minded, when faced with a theory or explanation they are predisposed against, reserving consideration or acceptance for such a time when a theory or explanation is unassailable in a world where ignorance or misinformation grants assailability to anything and everything.

proof is synonymous with evidence.

"Absolute proof"? Because when people want "proof" that's usually what they mean. Now put the dictionary down, Webster.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:"Absolute proof"? Because when people want "proof" that's usually what they mean. Now put the dictionary down, Webster.

refer to the first video.

Ferno wrote:proof is synonymous with evidence.

yes and no. Evidence builds, generally, to an accumulated weight that is considered proof. Rarely, one piece of evidence provides absolute proof, but not often. Evidence is mere data.......proof is certainty that the theory is correct. I'm probably being anal splitting hairs like this, but.......

callmeslick wrote:

Ferno wrote:proof is synonymous with evidence.

yes and no. Evidence builds, generally, to an accumulated weight that is considered proof. Rarely, one piece of evidence provides absolute proof, but not often. Evidence is mere data.......proof is certainty that the theory is correct. I'm probably being anal splitting hairs like this, but.......

Yes, in a sense. Evidence compiled can be considered proof, and proof is comprised of evidence.


But how did you enjoy the videos I posted?

oh, I loved them......thought I commented on the original posting, but well done.

Those videos are all right as far as they go. The approach is a bit one sided when it comes to subject matter, though. It is common to oppose belief in science and belief in the supernatural, but these are really orthogonal. Science is a method; the natural or supernatural is a topic.

There are rationally responsible people who believe in supernatural things. There are rationally responsible people who believe only in natural things. There are intellectually irresponsible people who believe in silly supernatural things. There are also intellectually irresponsible atheists who believe very silly things about, for example, religion.

Science is once of several rational approaches you can take to any topic. It works better or worse on various topics. It works great for physics. Psychology, sorta kinda. Good but not awesome. Medicine, it's okay but not great, but the best we got. Figuring out an individual person, navigating a relationship? It sucks. And some topics related to the supernatural, it's better or worse at. Learning to meditate effectively or to pray effectively is a fairly scientific process done in a community; learning theology has little scientific bits, but it's more logic and research than experimentation. And some supernatural things science is as useless for as it is for navigating love.

Anyway. It's good as far as it goes, but it's not hard to tell whose side this video is on. That's not good. If you're going to try to argue a meta point like this, your examples should be mixed or neutral. You should have as many stories about atheists who believe stupid things about churches for dumb reasons as you do about Chrisitians who credit the supernatural when they shouldn't. And there are lots of neutral topics you could draw from. There are backwards tribal peoples who believe silly supernatural things for silly reasons . . . there are also laws that support silly ideas for silly reasons, courts that uphold silly ideas for silly reasons, combat professionals who believe things without checking they work, computer security professionals who believe things for silly reasons. Even stories about scientists, from the golden age of science, who believed scientific theories for irresponsible reasons. No one is immune to this. If you spend the whole video criticizing one particular community and categorizing a whole bunch of beliefs as dumb, you can be sure you will lose those particular people as an audience, and lose the opportunity to make a meta point about rationality. And those were kinda the people who really needed to hear it.

It's also obnoxious to spend space criticizing the God of the Gaps so much. Explaining that it's a dumb idea in a very pandering tone. Yeah . . . in my experience, this isn't a mistake people actually make so much as it is a mistake that people think other people make. I've never met anyone who believed something -- however wrong it was -- for which they didn't think they had positive evidence. The idea that lack of an explanation means a particular explanation should win so obviously dumb that no one does it.

Now, sometimes someone will go for an explanation they think is easy, for which you're more critical because you don't believe in the principle. Like the guy who thought the lamp was being moved by a ghost; if he already believes in ghosts, it's easy and reasonable to think a ghost is doing it. To someone for whom ghosts are a part of life, that's a mundane explanation; it might be wrong, but not much is at stake either way. For someone who doesn't believe in them, though, the whole belief is at stake and he has a lot of motivation to question and search for alternatives. But the first guy . . . he doesn't believe in ghosts because of the lamp . . . other way around, he sees a ghost in the lamp because he already believes in them. This isn't god of the gaps. This is mundane relying on existing knowledge. He has pre existing positive evidence for ghosts coming from elsewhere. Or at least he thinks he does. (Or it may be a network of this type of event -- that happens, and actually isn't even all that irresponsible. Consistent ideas added up from a lot of ambiguous stories is pretty normal behavior. So people tend to keep believing what they already believe.)

People do this with all sorts of ideas, even true ideas. I hear things attributed to God that I don't think were him. I believe in him, I know he could do the thing in question, but I don't have any reason to believe he did. But for the other guy, it's an easy explanation. And I hear things attributed to evolution that are super dumb, even if you already fully believe in it. But it's easy. And sometimes people use scientific concepts that way, "It's genetics", "It's confirmation bias", whatever, and they think they're being scientific and rational because the concepts come from a community dedicated to those things . . . but reaching for an easy explanation without doing research is lazy and irresponsible, regardless of where that explanation comes from or how valid an idea it is on its own.

In the vein of Drakona's response:

Critical thinking is applied in a person's context of acceptable evidence. For a naturalist, any supernatural explanation isn't valid - and they will search among the natural for an explanation. In the video's example it's pretty easy... but what about in cases like universal fine tuning? Our current hard evidence indicates that the basic parameters of the universe (such as the strength of gravity) are tuned to support life against incredibly unlikely odds. So far the viable natural explanations (such as the multiverse) have no hard evidence to support them - they're simply accepted because they are the best explanation (given naturalism) available to us. If you don't presuppose naturalism (or infinite, undetectable dimensionality), universal fine tuning goes from an incredibly unlikely coincidence to a given (given an equally undetectable deity). So, in the really hard questions (often ones that become very philosophical in nature), both sides can stand there and accuse the other of being close-minded... because both sides start from a different set of accepted evidence and thus reach different conclusions. For both sides, given their sets of acceptable evidence, they've applied valid critical thinking.

Re: Universal fine tuning.

The idea that the universe is tuned to support life is false. The reason things appear this way is because life as we know it is very thoroughly adapted to this specific environment.

If you want compelling evidence against "universal fine tuning", I'd suggest traveling to Mars and attempting to go for a walk wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Or better yet, try Jupiter instead. Furthermore, have you heard of dark energy and how it is gradually overcoming gravity to become the dominant force in the universe? Even the force of gravity cannot be taken for granted.

Lets look at one other word to add to the evidence/proof mix...propaganda. There is a old adage that if you tell a lie often enough, people will start believing it as true. Once people believe it is true then it is a easy step from there to write laws based on the new belief. Case in point was the Hitler machine spreading first propaganda about jews being sub-human and then later writing laws based on the propaganda. We can see how well that all turned out. So I guess you reall have to define evidence. I was watching a History show about Exodus. The gist is that researchers found lots of evidence for the biblical accounts (Jericho being one) but the only problem is the accounts were placed in the wrong time periods according to Egyptian archaeology. Wrong as in centuries. If the found biblical evidence is correct, then it means all those famous Egyptian archaeologists got it wrong as to the dates they set forth. So let me ask you, how do you define "evidence" when evidence can clearly be manipulated?

Krom, the idea that life could exist in any condition and grows to depend on what it finds . . . that's certainly true about some things, but it sounds like sophistry applied to other things. The one that really gets me is the flatness problem. The solutions that don't involve God sound pretty lame to me, making the sort of noises that wrong theories make when they try to explain away evidence that they're wrong. Naturally, your mileage may vary. But from where I sit, one part in 10e62 is incredible odds for the universe to beat, to even have stars.

But you know, to go back to the meta stuff . . .

Krom is a lot more likely to put energy into finding an alternative explanation to the flatness problem -- a solution if you will -- than I am. In fact, given what I believe about where the universe came from, that flatness problem isn't even a problem. It's an interesting but rather unremarkable fact. It's the sort of thing I'd expect to find. So I have no real reason to look for an explanation. Well, I mean, intellectual duty and all -- making sure things are right. Dotting i's, crossing t's. But I don't have a burning, driving desire to find an explanation. I have one. It all fits. But someone who does have that need might find something that even I find persuasive, which is a good thing for me, too -- it would improve my understanding!

That's not to say theism is a weaker position in terms of intellectual curiosity, though; there are problems that would bother me that wouldn't bother him. I am a lot more likely to look critically at natural explanations for things I'm pretty sure God did. Origins tops the list, of course, but explanations about where the bible came from, about the religious experience. He might say, "Sure, sounds good" while I have a burning need to prove them false. Some of those explanations may actually turn out to be wrong, the knowledge of which helps him whether or not he's ultimately persuaded by my overall vuew.

This phenomenon is exactly why it's good to examine things with people who come from diverse perspectives. You get the best criticism that way. True in politics, too.

Is something an amazing shot in the dark beating all the odds, or is there simply insufficient data to understand why it was always going to be exactly on the numbers? Or is it really a variable, is the actual variable which hit the mark something else entirely that totally can miss but can also try again as many times as needed before it gets it right. It could be that the answer is easy to figure out, but requires observations and measurements currently unavailable to us. To make an analogy, it could be like trying detect an approaching supersonic jet before it arrives by listening for it very carefully.

Just because we don't have a good answer doesn't mean we should be willing to accept bad ones. Instead we should just call it unanswered and continue searching for an answer that satisfies all the conditions.

Krom wrote:Is something an amazing shot in the dark beating all the odds, or is there simply insufficient data to understand why it was always going to be exactly on the numbers? Or is it really a variable, is the actual variable which hit the mark something else entirely that totally can miss but can also try again as many times as needed before it gets it right. It could be that the answer is easy to figure out, but requires observations and measurements currently unavailable to us. To make an analogy, it could be like trying detect an approaching supersonic jet before it arrives by listening for it very carefully.

Just because we don't have a good answer doesn't mean we should be willing to accept bad ones. Instead we should just call it unanswered and continue searching for an answer that satisfies all the conditions.

Back to the larger point of the OP: From one perspective, the answer is pretty obvious and simple. From another, you're forced to grasp at straws to excuse your lack of a good answer. The videos conveniently created examples where it was the naturalist with the obvious answer, and the superstitious straw man who looked silly. I'm pointing out that there are questions out there for which the roles are reversed. I'm all about critical thinking, and it bothers me in "conservatives" just as it does in "liberals" - but we would do well to acknowledge that both groups (in the naturalism vs supernaturalism camps) have their share of both dolts and well reasoned thinkers.

EDIT: sorry, Re: your first response. You misunderstood me. I didn't mean that all of the universe was fine tuned for life, I meant that any of the universe is fine tuned for life - (fine tuning of the universe - mostly used in the context of universal constants such as the strength of gravity, not fine tuning applying to the entire universe.) If you want to talk about inhospitable, the interior of a star or open space would be some better places to start than Mars.

snoopy wrote:I'm pointing out that there are questions out there for which the roles are reversed. I'm all about critical thinking, and it bothers me in "conservatives" just as it does in "liberals" - but we would do well to acknowledge that both groups (in the naturalism vs supernaturalism camps) have their share of both dolts and well reasoned thinkers.

More directly:

If the only examples you can give of correct thought process are from people whose conclusions you agree with, and the only examples of incorrect thought process are from people whose conclusions you disagree with, it's not clear you're actually identifying process issues. It comes across as partisan.

Back to the original video: right near the start it talks about how open-mindedness is about being willing to consider new ideas. This brings up the important question of how new ideas and new evidence should be weighed in relation to pre-existing ideas and evidence. There are a number of flawed thinking patterns relating to "considering new ideas" that we already have names for. Dogmatism is when someone dismisses new ideas or evidence because they give too much weight to the old. Gullibility is when someone is too quick to adopt new ideas based on flimsy evidence, giving too little weight to the old. Radical skepticism gives little weight to either new or old, acting as though it's impossible to hold reasonable positions based on a preponderance of evidence. An appropriately evidential ("scientifically-minded") approach should treat both old and new information with the same, moderate level of skepticism, looking to test ideas by understanding what sort of evidence would confirm and what sort of evidence would deny a position, and looking for both types of evidence.

You can find people from each of these four schools in most major worldviews. In fact, you can usually find areas of each of these four schools in any single individual. You can't judge whether someone is being dogmatic, gullible, over-skeptical, or scientific based merely on their conclusions -- you can only judge it based on their thought process. Which means you can't just ask WHAT someone believes and then draw conclusions, you have to look at the WHY. People sometimes believe true things for stupid reasons -- like they might see a correct fact in a facebook meme and believe it, among a host of BS they also believe as a result of facebook memes. And people sometimes believe false things for good reasons (as Asimov points out in "The Relativity of Wrong", people had solid reasons to believe the earth was flat, and it was only the introduction of additional information that taught them the earth was actually a sphere -- or rather an oblate spheroid -- or actually an asymmetric shape pretty close to an oblate spheroid.)

The important thing is to train yourself into the scientific mindset, and recognize when you're falling into a dogmatic or gullible or over-skeptical mindset. Do you believe something merely because you read it from a favored source, or disbelieve merely because it came from a disfavored source (the Bible, rationalwiki, Fox News, Pharyngula, CNN, etc.)? When you hear new information that seems contrary to a prior belief, do you have a tendency to brush it off? When you hear information that seems to confirm an existing position, do you accept it without even the most basic of fact-checking (ten seconds of google, snopes, etc.)? Do your emotions get out of control when someone posts a fact that seems contrary to some important belief? If someone asks a question or brings up evidence you can't answer, do you deflect, dodge, or throw out insults rather than engage the idea head-on? Do you look for the weakest version of opposing positions and then act as though you've defeated the strongest version? These are all epistemically unhealthy behaviors -- even if the thing you believe is true.

Thank you Lothar, that was perfect.

and Drakona; nicely done earlier.

Here's the other side of it: the advantages to extremism, by John Cleese

the biggest advantage of extremism is that it makes you feel good. Because it provides you with enemies. Let me explain. The great thing about having enemies is that you can pretend that all the badness in the whole world is in your enemies and all the goodness in the whole world is in you! Attractive, isn’t it? So if you have a lot of anger and resentment in you anyway, and you therefore enjoy abusing people, then you can pretend that you’re only doing it because these enemies of yours are such very bad persons! And if it wasn’t for them you actually would be good natured and courteous and rational all the time! So if you want to feel good become an extremist!

I laughed pretty hard at his section on the lists of authorized enemies, too.