change to this forum
Posted by: Paul Stephenson on 10 August 2001
It could all end in tears, we cannot just add the features without upgrading the whole forum, there is the catch.
Oh well as they say in for a penny! You might love it.......you might not..
quote:
Getting back to the atheist... this person hasn't seen the entire universe, so he can't say with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist. If he holds that position, he does so without conclusive proof.
True, but it is not a prerequisite of atheism that one can prove with absolute certainty that God exists. An atheist is simply someone who disbelieves that God exists.
quote:
The position is, by definition, not rational rational as a logician would define it -- compelled by logic to accept the conclusion).
I know of no logician who would use that definition of rational - such an argument would more commonly be described simply as logical. By your definition, you are indeed right that my atheistic position is not rational. By my definition - which I must say is the commonly accepted "fuzzy" use of the term - it is rational. 
quote:
An atheist may, of course, choose to believe that God doesn't exist for all sorts of reasons, from trivial ... to substantial ... But the argument, even if it's strong or overwhelmingly compelling, isn't the same as proof...
Agreed.
quote:
If one holds the atheist's position, it done on faith.
Before I comment on this, I have a small confession to make. When Vuk claimed that my reasoning was seriously flawed, I actually checked through everything I had written in this thread, and found the following minor error. [This is not to say that I refuse to accept that my reasoning may be seriously flawed - simply that if it is I'm too stupid to see it without help].
At one point, I said:
quote:
But there is more to rationality than mere logic. The act of faith for the non-believer in Squornshellous Zeta is the belief that there is no rational reason to believe that such a planet exists - it is NOT the belief that it does not exist. The act of faith for the believer is simply the belief that Squornshellous Zeta - with its green jelly-monsters - exists.
since I have always understood 'faith' to mean, primarily, religious belief or trust in another person, I should have said, "The act of 'faith' for the non-believer..."
However, when you said:
quote:
It's the ultimate irony, really: atheism is a belief as firmly rooted in faith as is theism -- that is, both positions are accepted on faith, not evidence
it’s obvious that you did not mean faith in the sense that I generally mean. I think I unconsciously substituted "strong conviction" for faith in your statement - but then failed to make a case for why I disagree that atheism and theism are necessarily equally rooted in strong conviction. Unless you say that you did mean faith in the sense of strong conviction, it would be pretty Vukian of me to argue against it now, pretending that I know it is your view. But if it actually is your view then please let me know and I shall happily set out my arguments against it.
--Jeremy
quote:
Maybe we're a lot closer on this than either of us thought. By "faith," which I should have defined, I mean to hold a view or a belief that is not (in the strickest sense) logically sound.It's in this sense that I mean atheism is a position held by faith.
I can hardly disagree with that!
--Jeremy
Since he is, it seems, a scientist who has actually taught scientific method, it should not be beyond his ability to query anything I have said that is unclear to him, and to explicitly point out the flaws he has seen in my reasoning - which he has so far failed to do.
Vuk [from 2001-08-17 20:06]
quote:
...The argument is a simple one: you can not prove the non-existence of something…
First, I already gave an example of "something" whose non-existence could be logically proved:
Sproggle [2001-08-14 13:01]
quote:
Inasmuch as we can prove anything we can equally prove existence or non-existence. For example, one can prove that between any two real numbers there is an infinite number of real numbers. One can also prove that there is no number that is both greater than zero and less than zero. All proofs, whether logical, mathematical or less abstract depend on some axioms / beliefs that are taken to be true.
Further, there are infinitely many mathematical entities whose existence can be disproved.
Continuing Vuk’s quotation:
quote:
Unless, of course you start playing with language and conjure up shades of proving. The sort I mean is strictly YES/NO and not by the measure of what my senses tell me...
Vuk’s use of the words "playing" and "conjure" certainly conjure up a clear picture of his opinion of using "shades of proof." As far as I’m concerned, however, this sort of issue is trivial - involving no more than choice of words. The fact is that the majority of scientists do think in terms of disproving hypotheses/ theories - but this does not stop them from functioning as scientists.
Both a distinguished scientist (such as Vuk) and a lowly Sproggle have something in common. If I check my bathtub for crocodiles [which, of course, I do regularly] my intention is to make a rational decision about whether or not to take as true the proposition that there is a croc in my tub. When Vuk gives his favourite lab rat an electric shock every time it presses the "Rolling Stones" button in its cage [until it learns that it should only press the "boybander" button if it wants to eat] his intention is to perform a reproducible experiment. When the results from different experimenters with different experimental set-ups meet certain arbitrary statistical criteria (e.g. a 95% probability that the results did not occur purely by chance) then he assumes, I should imagine, that (subject to mistakes, fraud by other experimenters etc.) it is appropriate to describe the results as having been demonstrated to his satisfaction to be true. Both of us are, in a our different ways, deciding whether to treat an empirical fact as being true. [OK, an experimental generalisation may not be considered by some to be an empirical fact but I don't want to argue about it]. Vuk does not have to say that he has proved his results, and he does not have to even claim that his findings are true. However, in order to proceed effectively in his research he is likely to work on the assumption that his findings are indeed true.
quote:
...it was really difficult to get many students to banish the popular notion of science "proving" things from their minds and accept that empiricism relies fundamentally upon a probabilistic conception of the universe.
If Vuk’s teaching was as confused as the above statement then it’s hardly surprising that his students had problems - especially if his behaviour on this forum is representative of his teaching style.
First, does Vuk actually mean empiricism? I suspect not, because there are several mutually exclusive varieties of empiricism rather than a single agreed definition. Perhaps Vuk simply means "empirical science" - in which case, the claim that empirical science depends on a probabilistic conception of the universe is difficult to sustain. Until recently, science progressed for hundreds of years without there being a probabilistic conception of the universe. Newtonian mechanics (at least in principle) does not depend on a probabilistic universe. Would Vuk seriously describe it as pseudo-scientific or sub-scientific - or whatever? Despite its now known limitations, Newtonian mechanics remains a cornerstone of physics - which itself is a cornerstone of empirical science. Perhaps the solution to this puzzle is that Vuk actually intended to say "probabilistic/statistical techniques" rather than the more impressive sounding "a probabilistic conception of the universe".
Finally, repeating part of the above quotation and continuing:
quote:
…it was really difficult to get many students to banish the popular notion of science "proving" things from their minds and accept that empiricism relies fundamentally upon a probabilistic conception of the universe. I suspect you would have had a lot of red marks on your papers too.
If Vuk marked my work as carelessly as he reads other people’s posts on this forum it would not surprise me if it came back with a lot of red marks. Naturally, I would demand to be assigned to a tutor who actually knew his stuff.
The implication of the above and Vuk’s preceding discussion is that I believe that science is capable of finding logical proofs of empirical facts. In fact I never said anything of the sort. You only have to look immediately above the post that I’ve quoted from to see that I said:
quote:
…inasmuch as science proves or disproves anything.
Hardly the remark of a person who thinks what Vuk seems to think I think.
To be fair to Vuk I think it is highly unlikely that he actually is incompetent - he just seems that way because of his constant search for brownie points and adulation from other forum members. Poor guy!
However, it must be said that since I allowed Vuk to reduce me to his own level on this occasion, I suppose I have only myself to blame for his outbursts. Never again!!
I’m now bored, tired and no longer the least bit amused - probably an accurate despcription of anyone who's actually reached this point in my post - so I think I’ll give the wonderful world of Vuk a miss for a while. 
--Jeremy
[This message was edited by Sproggle on SATURDAY 18 August 2001 at 17:09.]