Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
-- Updated August 2nd, 2017, 8:18 pm to add the following --
Even when we consider multiple dimensions, we must be influenced to some degree by "non-physical" expression of energy.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
Dawkins is right and he's not claiming that goodness or evilness don't exist. What he's saying is what the evidence shows: that behind the fact of existence of the universe there's no ultimate purpose or rationality, the work of a supreme creator with the attributes of a person: mind, will, reason, etc. Goodness and evilness are concepts, they are representations in human minds, and they exist only as human society arrived to the scene.Fan of Science wrote:Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins that makes no sense to me: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." How could he know such a thing? He may have come to the conclusion that there is no evil, despite the existence of such notables as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, but how does he know evil does not exist? He may have concluded that there is no good, despite the numerous acts of kindness that people express daily, but how could he know for sure goodness does not exist?
It' hardly believable that you can model the entire evolutionary process in a computer. It's not even a problem of computing capacity.Fan of Science wrote:He claims there is no designer, but we can computer model a great deal, including evolution, so how does he know that no designer exists? And how could any observation anyone could make cause one to conclude that there is no purpose at all to the universe?
The idea of purpose itself cancels immediately the idea of a supreme being, which would have to be omniscient and omnipotent. Purpose implies an outcome, expectations and lack of control of the future.
If there was a purpose and a supreme being carrying out actions to achieve the desired effects, there would not be the need for physical laws. All that would be needed would be the will of the supreme being.Fan of Science wrote:What so-called "precise properties" is he even referring to? Conservation of energy? What physical laws should we observe in order for the universe to have a purpose as opposed to what we presently observe?
It doesn't come from empiricism alone, but the conjunction of inductive and deductive reasoning.Fan of Science wrote:Dawkins seems to be making a claim that science, or at least direct empirical observations, have left us with no other conclusion than those he describes. How so? I doubt see how he makes this amazing leap from observations of the universe to his conclusions.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
I would highly disagree with that statement. It's simply incorrect or even illogical to suggest evidence of absence of anything. The closest I could come without violating my intellect would be to say... it's not probable.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
So, for you it would be incorrect or illogical to state that I'm not standing besides you right now. The same if it were proposed that cavemen didn't build Notre Dame's cathedral.Ranvier wrote:"What he's saying is what the evidence shows: that behind the fact of existence of the universe there's no ultimate purpose or rationality..."
I would highly disagree with that statement. It's simply incorrect or even illogical to suggest evidence of absence of anything. The closest I could come without violating my intellect would be to say... it's not probable.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
I don't want to get philosophical but if you have a word for something, it already exists on some level.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
The empirical evidence that there isn't something is a valid starting point to infer that there can't ever be that something, once you have analyzed and synthesized all the information available. That's what Dawkins was saying: we observe the universe and find that it's arranged according to laws which exclude the wilful and rational purpose proclaimed by theists.Ranvier wrote:I love word games... I don't know? What's your evidence? In my statement obviously I was thinking more in terms of evidence that you don't exist or that Notre Dame just appeared on it's own or evidence that unicorns don't exist
I don't want to get philosophical but if you have a word for something, it already exists on some level.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
"The empirical evidence that there isn't something is a valid starting point to infer that there can't ever be that something..."
Empirical evidence - means knowledge gained through observation and experimentation...
How can you observe nothing and experiment on nothing to produce as evidence of nothing? Can you imagine how that sounds to others?
To further infer this: "there can't ever be that something" That's wishful thinking but not science, especially when presented as an absolute.
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20140325.png
The problem is that the universe doesn't consist of laws that exclude theism, or anything else. The universe contains laws that explain questions within a narrow domain without needing a reference to a deity. That's as far as it goes. You want those laws to make up everything in the universe, or those questions to be the only questions, then you need to assume a metaphysical position prior to observation.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
That is not a fact, as you claim. One can infer from the absence of a wave pattern in the water, that something has not just come out or into the water. One can infer from the absence of a specific color in a chemical reaction, if one substance is present or not. One can claim the absence of an extraterrestrial being in the middle of the field during the Super Bowl if no one took one photograph.Ranvier wrote:I think we all understand what Dawkins was trying to say and what you are implying. It doesn't change the fact that one can't claim absence of something because one can't detect something.
Ask a doctor how he knows he has cured a patient. You might be shocked after listening his answer.Ranvier wrote:Empirical evidence - means knowledge gained through observation and experimentation...Count Lucanor wrote:"The empirical evidence that there isn't something is a valid starting point to infer that there can't ever be that something..."
How can you observe nothing and experiment on nothing to produce as evidence of nothing? Can you imagine how that sounds to others?
You're simply denying the possibility of negative clauses, which is the most illogical thing in the world.Ranvier wrote: To further infer this: "there can't ever be that something" That's wishful thinking but not science, especially when presented as an absolute.
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
What evidence shows this, and how does it show this?Count Lucanor wrote:What he's saying is what the evidence shows: that behind the fact of existence of the universe there's no ultimate purpose or rationality, the work of a supreme creator with the attributes of a person: mind, will, reason, etc.
A computer game character in an analogous situation could use the same reasoning (if it became conscious) to conclude that behind the existence of its observable universe, there is no design, no purpose, etc. It's universe may even be more predictable than ours. And yet we know its universe has one or more designers and creators, and may have players - all of which can be viewed as supernatural relative to the character's universe, each with ideas of purpose - and any reasoning it used to conclude otherwise must be flawed. What evidence can a computer character show to support any conclusion regarding design and purpose (especially if it is in a zero player game)? What evidence can we show to rule out the possibility this universe is an instance of a higher level computer-like game?
The quote refers to "no design, no purpose", not "no supreme being". A designer or creator doesn't have to be a supreme being. If a supreme being has to be omniscient and omnipotent, and this rules out purpose (and many other attributes of a person), and if purpose rules out supreme being, then asserting that there is no purpose opens the door to a supreme being?Count Lucanor wrote:The idea of purpose itself cancels immediately the idea of a supreme being, which would have to be omniscient and omnipotent. Purpose implies an outcome, expectations and lack of control of the future.
If purpose and supreme being are mutually exclusive then why raise additional situations that include both? If a creator has a purpose then it is unlikely to be a supreme being. Creators could try to play out games in their imaginations, but lacking supreme abilities they may find the game is more enjoyable if they use a computer to implement "physical laws", allowing them to focus mainly on providing on player input during a game, or simply observing.Count Lucanor wrote:If there was a purpose and a supreme being carrying out actions to achieve the desired effects, there would not be the need for physical laws. All that would be needed would be the will of the supreme being.
The same reasoning could be used by anyone to conclude that you don't have a mind. There is no physical evidence that you have a mind. Explanations for your behaviour can be found that don't require you to have a mind. Is there any difference in reasoning behind the conclusions? How can anyone know that you or any other entity doesn't have a mind? How can anyone know that you do have a mind unless they have access to it? If you do have a mind and you experience this then you will know, and anyone who concludes you don't will be wrong.Count Lucanor wrote:It doesn't come from empiricism alone, but the conjunction of inductive and deductive reasoning.
The space beside John can be searched to see if anyone is there. If no one is seen, this can count as evidence that supports the assertion that you are not there. If only the left side of John is searched, then the evidence is clearly not conclusive. Even if both sides are searched and it seems the search is exhaustive, it is possible that you have been overlooked, but at least there is some evidence to suggest you are not beside him.Count Lucanor wrote:So, for you it would be incorrect or illogical to state that I'm not standing besides you right now.
If John is inside a box, he can search everywhere inside the box, and if he doesn't find you then he may believe that you are not inside. His search of the space in question can count as evidence in support of his belief. If he knows you exist then he may conclude that if you are not in the box then you must be outside the box. But what if he doesn't know if you exist or not? Is it reasonable for him to conclude that you don't exist because evidence suggests you are not in the box? What reason does he have to believe that you don't exist outside the box? What evidence can he show that you are not outside unless he has access to information from outside the box (and he is in a position to know that it is truly from the outside)?
John may think that everything in the box can be explained without recourse to anything outside the box, and maybe it can, but how can he reasonably conclude you are not outside, especially if you know you are outside? Likewise, if John is outside the box, how can he know that you are not inside it unless he has access to information from the inside (or he knows you are outside with him)?
(In this example, inside and outside are 2 sub-spaces of the same physical space, and if dimensions of the box are known from one side then something is known about the other side. But if spaces can be totally separate (where are imaginary and virtual spaces in relation to physical space?), then access to information from a space may be needed to know anything about the space, including its existence.)
The problem is, all the information available may not be all the information that is needed to infer this. If all available information is regarding inside the box, then what can be inferred about the non-existence of anything outside the box? And besides, who has analysed and synthesised all the information that is available in physical space, let alone other spaces?Count Lucanor wrote:The empirical evidence that there isn't something is a valid starting point to infer that there can't ever be that something, once you have analyzed and synthesized all the information available.
Even if some being is able to predict every single thing in the universe with 100% accuracy according to laws of physics (including when individual radioactive atoms decay), as if to suggest there is no supernatural input, how do these laws explain their own origins?Count Lucanor wrote:That's what Dawkins was saying: we observe the universe and find that it's arranged according to laws which exclude the wilful and rational purpose proclaimed by theists.
Of course, any suggestion that they have supernatural origins raises questions about the origins of these origins. There are unresolved questions of origins either way.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
In non-biological systems, there's plenty of scientific evidence that when things occur in a predictable way, they do so following fundamental laws that are not bent capriciously to fulfil a conscious purpose. They don't behave arbitrarily, which is how they would look if there were a conscious being overriding them. And when things in nature do form systems where randomness is a key factor, there isn't either a will acting to override the randomness and producing outcomes consistent with a rational purpose.-0+ wrote:What evidence shows this, and how does it show this?Count Lucanor wrote:What he's saying is what the evidence shows: that behind the fact of existence of the universe there's no ultimate purpose or rationality, the work of a supreme creator with the attributes of a person: mind, will, reason, etc.
If part of the universe were a simulation, as your scenario implies, then all dwellers of that simulated world would have no real consciousness, only a simulation of consciousness, which would be entirely determined and dependent of the architect of said simulation. So, if a inhabitant of this world can show independence of mind and agency, that alone would prove that there's no designer running the show, which is exacly what happens. And there's no point in arguing that freedom of choice is also a simulation, because such argument will imply that the designer is trying to fool real, independent minds, which is absurd, given that the scenario requires them to be actually simulated, so the designer would be trying to fool him/herself. That will not be resolved either by arguing of a possible anomaly in the simulation. Every solution will lead to free agency and independent bodies, which dismantles the simulation hypothesis.-0+ wrote:A computer game character in an analogous situation could use the same reasoning (if it became conscious) to conclude that behind the existence of its observable universe, there is no design, no purpose, etc. It's universe may even be more predictable than ours. And yet we know its universe has one or more designers and creators, and may have players - all of which can be viewed as supernatural relative to the character's universe, each with ideas of purpose - and any reasoning it used to conclude otherwise must be flawed. What evidence can a computer character show to support any conclusion regarding design and purpose (especially if it is in a zero player game)? What evidence can we show to rule out the possibility this universe is an instance of a higher level computer-like game?
No. I don't see why lack of purpose in running the universe will open the door to a supreme being. It does the opposite.-0+ wrote:The quote refers to "no design, no purpose", not "no supreme being". A designer or creator doesn't have to be a supreme being. If a supreme being has to be omniscient and omnipotent, and this rules out purpose (and many other attributes of a person), and if purpose rules out supreme being, then asserting that there is no purpose opens the door to a supreme being?
If we understand the universe as everything there is, then a creator or designer of such universe would be a supreme being, a being above all beings.
To show the absurdity of the situations?-0+ wrote:If purpose and supreme being are mutually exclusive then why raise additional situations that include both?
If a creator is not a supreme being, then this designer is part of a broader context with rules to which it submits to. Then you would have exactly the same scenario you are trying to argue against: a purposeless universe in which the designer resides. Unless, of course, you propose another being above that designer, and there you will stumble on the supreme being again. Your middle ground argument does not work.-0+ wrote:If a creator has a purpose then it is unlikely to be a supreme being. Creators could try to play out games in their imaginations, but lacking supreme abilities they may find the game is more enjoyable if they use a computer to implement "physical laws", allowing them to focus mainly on providing on player input during a game, or simply observing.
If someone reasons and concludes that I don't have a mind, it would be against his/her own evidence that he/she has a mind to reason and reach conclusions, which is exactly what I do. If it's valid for that someone, it's valid for me.-0+ wrote:The same reasoning could be used by anyone to conclude that you don't have a mind. There is no physical evidence that you have a mind. Explanations for your behaviour can be found that don't require you to have a mind. Is there any difference in reasoning behind the conclusions? How can anyone know that you or any other entity doesn't have a mind? How can anyone know that you do have a mind unless they have access to it? If you do have a mind and you experience this then you will know, and anyone who concludes you don't will be wrong.
Be reminded that I was answering the claim that my statement about so called "evidence of absence" was illogical. The argument is therefore about the logical soundness of any statement regarding my presence besides Ranvier, and then how this is contrasted against the empirical evidence.-0+ wrote:The space beside John can be searched to see if anyone is there. If no one is seen, this can count as evidence that supports the assertion that you are not there. If only the left side of John is searched, then the evidence is clearly not conclusive. Even if both sides are searched and it seems the search is exhaustive, it is possible that you have been overlooked, but at least there is some evidence to suggest you are not beside him.
If John claims that there's an entity outside the box that determined everything related to this box, John would be already claiming that he knows, that he has information beyond the box. In that case, we will readily ask John to give us access to this evidence. If John says all his evidence of an entity outside the box comes from within the box, then he cannot demand others to give evidence from outside the box to prove that his proposed entity doesn't exist. We're all stuck with what there is in the box. And then, if John claims that what he sees inside the box makes him believe that there's a designer with a purpose outside the limits of the box, the Dawkins' quote shows its relevance: everything inside the box behaves exactly as it would behave being absent that designer.-0+ wrote:If John is inside a box, he can search everywhere inside the box, and if he doesn't find you then he may believe that you are not inside. His search of the space in question can count as evidence in support of his belief. If he knows you exist then he may conclude that if you are not in the box then you must be outside the box. But what if he doesn't know if you exist or not? Is it reasonable for him to conclude that you don't exist because evidence suggests you are not in the box? What reason does he have to believe that you don't exist outside the box? What evidence can he show that you are not outside unless he has access to information from outside the box (and he is in a position to know that it is truly from the outside)?
John may think that everything in the box can be explained without recourse to anything outside the box, and maybe it can, but how can he reasonably conclude you are not outside, especially if you know you are outside? Likewise, if John is outside the box, how can he know that you are not inside it unless he has access to information from the inside (or he knows you are outside with him)?
The problem is, all the information available may not be all the information that is needed to infer this. If all available information is regarding inside the box, then what can be inferred about the non-existence of anything outside the box? And besides, who has analysed and synthesised all the information that is available in physical space, let alone other spaces?
Because of the most obvious reason, one that can even be shared with theists: there's no origin.-0+ wrote:Even if some being is able to predict every single thing in the universe with 100% accuracy according to laws of physics (including when individual radioactive atoms decay), as if to suggest there is no supernatural input, how do these laws explain their own origins?
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
No, there isn't. What we observe is a consistent pattern. Nothing more is observable, even in theory.Count Lucanor wrote:In non-biological systems, there's plenty of scientific evidence that when things occur in a predictable way, they do so following fundamental laws that are not bent capriciously to fulfil a conscious purpose.-0+ wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
What evidence shows this, and how does it show this?
No, not necessarily.Count Lucanor wrote:They don't behave arbitrarily, which is how they would look if there were a conscious being overriding them.
Imagine someone playing a computer racing game. The car is kept between the lines at the edge of the road. So when we observe the car, it's always between the lines. We could even express that as a physical law, cars can not vary beyond the lines.
But we'd be wrong.
The problem with this assumption, and with your earlier statement about the absence of ripples allowing us to imagine the that nothing has entered the water, is that they rely on assuming the properties of the thing you are looking for. If light entered the water, for example, there would be no ripples. By looking to ripples to establish whether something was there or not, you're making assumptions about the nature of what you're looking for. This means that such inferences can not be used to rule out entities about who's nature you are unaware, or which are undefined.
Why? Again, you're making assumptions about the nature of the simulation, such that it can't produce 'real' consciousness, or that the purpose of the simulation must fall within a range you deem reasonable, or that agency would impossible. What on earth are those assumptions based on, given that you know nothing about such a simulation would work, or why it would occur?Count Lucanor wrote:If part of the universe were a simulation, as your scenario implies, then all dwellers of that simulated world would have no real consciousness, only a simulation of consciousness, which would be entirely determined and dependent of the architect of said simulation.
I should point out also, that variations on the simulation hypothesis are quite popular in astrophysics at the moment, so this isn't as hypothetical as it might be.
What if they reason that you don't have a mind, and neither do they? That was the position taken by McFarland, a famous experimental psychologist.Count Lucanor wrote:If someone reasons and concludes that I don't have a mind, it would be against his/her own evidence that he/she has a mind to reason and reach conclusions, which is exactly what I do. If it's valid for that someone, it's valid for me.
Quite so. Logically speaking, you can talk about more or less evidence, but without making an assumption about what could and could not detect John, then your conclusion is unsound.Count Lucanor wrote:Be reminded that I was answering the claim that my statement about so called "evidence of absence" was illogical. The argument is therefore about the logical soundness of any statement regarding my presence besides Ranvier, and then how this is contrasted against the empirical evidence.-0+ wrote:The space beside John can be searched to see if anyone is there. If no one is seen, this can count as evidence that supports the assertion that you are not there. If only the left side of John is searched, then the evidence is clearly not conclusive. Even if both sides are searched and it seems the search is exhaustive, it is possible that you have been overlooked, but at least there is some evidence to suggest you are not beside him.
Break it down:
P1 John is next to me
P2 I do not hear John next to me
P3 I do not see John next to me
C1 If P2 and P3 are true, P1 is false
This conclusion is sound only if P2 and P3 are reliable tests for the presence of John. If they are not (If you are blind and deaf, for example) then the conclusion is unsound.
So how are you establishing the reliability of tests for the universe having a purpose? What would those tests even look like?
Why? You're claiming that the fact that you havn't witnessed the information means that John is wrong. What would you need his observations for, if yours are a reliable in their own right?Count Lucanor wrote:If John claims that there's an entity outside the box that determined everything related to this box, John would be already claiming that he knows, that he has information beyond the box. In that case, we will readily ask John to give us access to this evidence.
Dawkins hasn't witnessed every event in the box, and neither has John. If you're looking for a rare event, the fact that Dawkins has not witnessed that rare event, doesn't tell us anything very useful about whether John has seen that event, or whether the event occurs.Count Lucanor wrote: If John says all his evidence of an entity outside the box comes from within the box, then he cannot demand others to give evidence from outside the box to prove that his proposed entity doesn't exist. We're all stuck with what there is in the box.
Everything inside the box also behaves as if the designer is present, in that scenario. So how are you choosing one over the other?Count Lucanor wrote: And then, if John claims that what he sees inside the box makes him believe that there's a designer with a purpose outside the limits of the box, the Dawkins' quote shows its relevance: everything inside the box behaves exactly as it would behave being absent that designer.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?
Observation is not enough for scientific evidence, and I never said we just had observations. It is the first stage of the process that will lead to obtaining evidence by adding conditions of control to those consistent patterns and testing the results, until the fundamental laws that govern them are discovered.Togo1 wrote:No, there isn't. What we observe is a consistent pattern. Nothing more is observable, even in theory.Count Lucanor wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
In non-biological systems, there's plenty of scientific evidence that when things occur in a predictable way, they do so following fundamental laws that are not bent capriciously to fulfil a conscious purpose.
In the context of the computer game, and if we could get to the fundamental laws that govern that game, which is no other than the limits set by the programmer's code, we could indeed claim with certainty that these game cars cannot move beyond the lines. Once the programmer sent the game to production, we wouldn't expect nothing different in the car's behavior outside the options set by the code. But if the cars started behaving arbitrarily, disobeying the coded instructions, that would be an unexpected behavior (kind of "supernatural" in the context of the game design) and we would assume an external agent is overriding it.Togo1 wrote:No, not necessarily.Count Lucanor wrote:They don't behave arbitrarily, which is how they would look if there were a conscious being overriding them.
Imagine someone playing a computer racing game. The car is kept between the lines at the edge of the road. So when we observe the car, it's always between the lines. We could even express that as a physical law, cars can not vary beyond the lines.
But we'd be wrong.
Can the game designer and the external agent be one and the same? No, because they would fall in contradiction with each other regarding their purposes.
You seem to forget that we actually learn from past experiences what we could expect under given conditions and the nature of things involved. We know that if an object with mass and volume enters the water, it will form ripples. We will know also what will happen when light or sound enters. The absence of such effects will be an indication of the absence of their causes.Togo1 wrote: The problem with this assumption, and with your earlier statement about the absence of ripples allowing us to imagine the that nothing has entered the water, is that they rely on assuming the properties of the thing you are looking for. If light entered the water, for example, there would be no ripples. By looking to ripples to establish whether something was there or not, you're making assumptions about the nature of what you're looking for. This means that such inferences can not be used to rule out entities about who's nature you are unaware, or which are undefined.
No, there's no assumption playing a part here. The very concept of simulation implies not being real. If you have a simulated world, everything inside that world will be simulated.Togo1 wrote:Why? Again, you're making assumptions about the nature of the simulation, such that it can't produce 'real' consciousness, or that the purpose of the simulation must fall within a range you deem reasonable, or that agency would impossible. What on earth are those assumptions based on, given that you know nothing about such a simulation would work, or why it would occur?Count Lucanor wrote:If part of the universe were a simulation, as your scenario implies, then all dwellers of that simulated world would have no real consciousness, only a simulation of consciousness, which would be entirely determined and dependent of the architect of said simulation.
Stephen Hawking? Lawrence Krauss? Neil deGrasse Tyson? None of them give any credit to the idea of a "simulator".Togo1 wrote:I should point out also, that variations on the simulation hypothesis are quite popular in astrophysics at the moment, so this isn't as hypothetical as it might be.
If someone reasons that he/she cannot reason, that someone is delusional.Togo1 wrote:What if they reason that you don't have a mind, and neither do they? That was the position taken by McFarland, a famous experimental psychologist.Count Lucanor wrote:If someone reasons and concludes that I don't have a mind, it would be against his/her own evidence that he/she has a mind to reason and reach conclusions, which is exactly what I do. If it's valid for that someone, it's valid for me.
Again, you're confusing the empirical truth of a claim with its logical soundness. The claim about the absence or presence of something can be empirically either true or false, but claiming to be illogical is something else. That's what the counterpart did, claiming that the assertion about the absence of something was illogical. That's undoubtedly wrong, as shown by the example that at any given point in time, it can be empirically proven that I am or am not beside a person. That person claiming that a proposition about absence can't be logically valid, would be claiming that he/she cannot make basic empirical assertions of which people are absent or present around him.Togo1 wrote:Quite so. Logically speaking, you can talk about more or less evidence, but without making an assumption about what could and could not detect John, then your conclusion is unsound.Count Lucanor wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Be reminded that I was answering the claim that my statement about so called "evidence of absence" was illogical. The argument is therefore about the logical soundness of any statement regarding my presence besides Ranvier, and then how this is contrasted against the empirical evidence.
Break it down:
P1 John is next to me
P2 I do not hear John next to me
P3 I do not see John next to me
C1 If P2 and P3 are true, P1 is false
This conclusion is sound only if P2 and P3 are reliable tests for the presence of John. If they are not (If you are blind and deaf, for example) then the conclusion is unsound.
Isn't that what the Dawkins' quote is about? Refer to the box example.Count Lucanor wrote:So how are you establishing the reliability of tests for the universe having a purpose? What would those tests even look like?
No. You haven't understood the sense of the sentence: in the example, I have not said John is wrong. I have suspended my judgement to give John the opportunity to explain and give proof of having gained access to the information that conforms his assertion, and which by John's own definition, is only to be found outside the box. Then, of course, we all would have access to such information and John would not be able to assert that it's information outside the reach of those who deny there's something outside the box.Togo1 wrote:Why? You're claiming that the fact that you havn't witnessed the information means that John is wrong. What would you need his observations for, if yours are a reliable in their own right?Count Lucanor wrote:If John claims that there's an entity outside the box that determined everything related to this box, John would be already claiming that he knows, that he has information beyond the box. In that case, we will readily ask John to give us access to this evidence.
You're avoiding the argument and the point that was made. Do you acknowledge that we're all stuck with what there is in the box? And that, meanwhile, we're talking about something supposedly happening outside the box? How do you link the two domains without violating the differentiation between what's inside and outside the box, without erasing the limits of the box?Togo1 wrote:Dawkins hasn't witnessed every event in the box, and neither has John. If you're looking for a rare event, the fact that Dawkins has not witnessed that rare event, doesn't tell us anything very useful about whether John has seen that event, or whether the event occurs.Count Lucanor wrote: If John says all his evidence of an entity outside the box comes from within the box, then he cannot demand others to give evidence from outside the box to prove that his proposed entity doesn't exist. We're all stuck with what there is in the box.
There can't be both of them: you cannot have the designer absent and present outside the box at the same time. Secondly, if things going on in the box can be explained for themselves, without resorting to an external agent outside the box, and if links between the inside and the outside of the box can't be explained, then it makes more sense to dismiss any theory of an external agent at all.Togo1 wrote:Everything inside the box also behaves as if the designer is present, in that scenario. So how are you choosing one over the other?Count Lucanor wrote: And then, if John claims that what he sees inside the box makes him believe that there's a designer with a purpose outside the limits of the box, the Dawkins' quote shows its relevance: everything inside the box behaves exactly as it would behave being absent that designer.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023