1001. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178511 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 2:16 pm

It's merely levels of forsight, we are not the only animal with forsight, just the one with the best forsight. Don't believe me, hit your dog three time and then raise your hand. If it flinches, then it must be able to infer that you raising your hand is followed by it getting hit.

None of the qualities of people magically appeared one day. Even language, art, music and things of that nature must be a by-product of other traits that other animals have by lack the proper combinations or developement of certain traits to do it themselves. Everything developed gradually.

It has been suggested (quite plausably in my opinion) that our affinity for mathematics and logic is a by-product of learning to throw spears and rocks accurately, which take extremely powerful and fast calculations, and muscle and limp dexterity in order to do.

1002. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178505 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Indeed, Paula. So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then...

Quite clearly, demonstratably, and obviously it comes from human beings. People say what we ought and ought not do. That is how ethics work. We don't go around punching people in the face because they don't want to get punched in the face, and the result of doing so would often result in behaviour that you don't want.

1003. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178495 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Clearly holding true beliefs in certain situations is more beneficial than holding false ones, and holding false ones is often neutral to ones survival. For instance; knowing what a bear will do to you if it gets ahold of you is beneficial to your survival. Knowing what will happen if you fall from a high distance is beneficial to you. Knowing what the moon and stars are, or the shape of the planet is not, and that is why we held false beliefs in those areas. We are much more likely to hold false beliefs that do not readily effect our survivability than we are to hold false beliefs that do.

We are mostly concerned about the truth because we are a social animal, and falsehoods are often signs of deception, which we interpret as unethical because we don't like being deceived, and being deceived is often disadvantaging. We like to hold true beliefs because they are beneficial to us. As the practicality of arquiring them has been demonstrated over and over again by science.

1004. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178486 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Artful Dodger, that is because he need not address it. It is logically fallacious to suggest that because something is natural, that it is therefore good. That is the naturalistic fallacy. Diseases, cancer, and rape are all natural. Do you think they then must be good? It is only inconsistent if you think that natural equals good. He need not address that it doesn't because he expects everyone listening to already know that it doesn't.

1005. Justice In The Brain: Equity And Efficiency Are Encoded Differently

Comment #178146 by Mitchell Gilks on May 10, 2008 at 3:27 pm

I think I'd agree with the latter option as well, to an extent.

1006. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178071 by Mitchell Gilks on May 10, 2008 at 12:09 pm

And I was all ready to be pissed off when I saw the headline. I get offended everytime I go to the grocery strore... and see disgusting hunks of flesh everywhere. No one seems to care about offending me. That is what I was going to say.

This is obviously not about offending people, but clearly exactly for the reasons offered. It would be foolish to have a main dish of beef on a flight to india which is sure to have a large number of Hindus, no one will buy it. Getting a dish that is far more likely to be popular with Hindus, as well as other people is the best economic and pragmatic course of action.

This news paper seems to be purposely attempting to stir shit.

1007. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177339 by Mitchell Gilks on May 9, 2008 at 12:08 am

I think that the cousin of the reductio ad absurdum, the ol'reductio ad hitlerum was perfectly valid. Dawkins merely wanted to explicate that the argument tactic the good Rabbi was fond of was an extremely weak on, of all hot air and no substance. How better to do that than to name the guy most known for that? that they both can agree didn't know what he what he was talking about, but was able to stir up a croud in that manner?

I think that people have to appreciate context. It isn't as if Dawkins accused him of holding any of the same views and ideas. Or attempted to even implie that they had anything else in common.

This seems to be a unjustified knee-jerk reaction to the old "H word" without appreciation for the fact that his comparison was perfectly accurate, and he said nothing that anyone here has disputed or claimed false so far. It isn't a "dirty" word.

If you grow a little square mustash, expect to be reminded of hitler (referencing only his mustash). If you copy his mannerisms, then expect this to be pointed out as well (referencing only his mannerisms). Hitler was a bad guy, we all know, this doesn't mean he can never be mentioned again, or that it is never appropriate to make accurately, and limited uncontroversial comparisons, based on singular qualities.

He compared the guys style of argument, delivery, and public address, that is all. No need to get all flustered.

1008. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177169 by Mitchell Gilks on May 8, 2008 at 5:19 pm

"Dear Shmuley. learn2properly form and deliver arguments and points. Stop screaming like a madman, and learn2read up on the things you plan on talking about. Pwnage from your friendly-internationally-known-atheist, RD."

This is exactly how it read to me. I'm just in that kind of mood tonight. PWNED!

(*Edit*) I see I wasn't the only one to get that impression.

1009. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176904 by Mitchell Gilks on May 8, 2008 at 10:10 am

65. Comment #176775 by MPhil
"We, your parents have been buying the presents, have been eating the cookies and drinking the milk. Reindeers can't fly" etc.

Wtf mom and dad? You lied to me? Etcetera? ETCETERA? What else? Do I have terminal cancer? Am I adopted? Medicine doesn't help me at all? You just enjoy making me drink something that tastes terrible? Vegetables are bad for you?

You people are dead to me.

1010. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176710 by Mitchell Gilks on May 7, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na leader -- leader. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na leader -- leader.

1011. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176674 by Mitchell Gilks on May 7, 2008 at 9:10 pm

I'm just not a music fan, I listen to music as background noise sometimes, but my ipod is full of things like lectures Japanese instructional mp3s and a couple cds for when I'm too tired to pay attention to the other two.

I'm also not a fan of big crouds, though I don't really avoid them, there are events that I would go to that are crouded.

As for your other reasons MPhil, while philosophical and scientific laymen like me like to stay in our armchairs. I'll let the real philosophers and scientists do the work and then I'll read about it later.

1012. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176628 by Mitchell Gilks on May 7, 2008 at 7:56 pm

12. Comment #176544 by Cartomancer

I guess I've never actually been to a religious service of any kind before, so I haven't really got a point of reference for comparison. People tell me that sporting events and musical concerts are similar, but I've never been to one of those either. The closest I've come to experiencing that sort of focussed communal event is probably attending theatrical performances

I have't either. I used to be dragged along to church when I was like 12 and under, but they were boring events that rarely even had a minister, they would listen to tapes. I would sleep or something.

I've never been to a concert or a sporting event either, not my thing. I prefer persuing far nerdier activities.

I'm also blown away at how people can surrender to such obvious nonsense so easily. Though I know such people exist, I'm surrounded by them. I often wonder how it is possible that I turned out with the views and opinions that I did. I have known no one personally, throughout my entire life who shared anything near my views on the world.

1013. What really goes on at the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #176150 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Excellent talk, I really enjoyed it. Loved that Sagan quote, I will have to remember that. Though every word Sagan ever said was worth remembering. No one inspires like he did.

1014. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #176085 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 2:13 pm

This is getting old, I don't want to continue to repeat myself over and over and over again to tell you the same things. I'm sorry that you are having trouble understanding, and I must be extremely poor at conveying myself, but I'm grow tired of attempting and failing to get you to understand what I am saying.

First, I said that if the average person in the UK, and court TV shows are saying claims are evidence, then they are mistaken. Your court system is based on the same things the Canadian court system is set up on.

You assume a normative and objective standard of proof, when I have repeatedly said that no such standard exists. Something is proven to you when you believe it. The thing is, that when you attempt to justify what you believe to more rational people, they can demonstrate that what you accepted as evidence was not evidence, or give you reasons why the evidence that is available is insufficient to establish belief. You cannot proof even deductive propositions to people that are unwilling to accept your proof. You can prove that a red apple is red to someone who is unwilling to accept it. Also, I have repeatedly said that science is the best, not the only system, and have repeatedly not suggested that everyone accepts or agrees with me. I have specially said that I was willing to bet that the majority of the scientific and philosophical community agrees with me, I never once even implied that everyone did.

Even theologians accept that the bible is not evidence and thus it requires faith. When you get into an argument with a theist and show the insufficency of their reasons, they will also bring it back to faith. Unless they are immune to reason, then they will admit that the bible is insufficient to prove anything. That is why they use faith, which is premission to belief something without rational justification. Even they accept this.

The credibility of the person works as evidence for the claim, the claim does not work as evidence by itself. The claim is not evidence in and of itself, which is what I've said repeatedly. Lots of evidence can be established for a claim, with physical evidence in not available, probabolistic evidence is gathered. This requires investigation of the person. Remember the explains of the two types of investigations?

You definition is ambiguous, and tells me nothing, it is a bad definition that has the word it is defining in it. "What's a gloggle?" Oh, well that's the things that are gloggle."

See, I'm explicate, that which tends to prove is sufficient evidence, proper sound a valid logical inferences, or properly demonstrated and worked out mathematical abstractions that lead to a conclusion validly supported by it's equations or premises. That is what tends to prove, per all the other definitions of proof if you care to look. I'm talking about the evidence one.

Testimony in and of itself is not evidence, properly supported testimony rendered credible by invesigation of the person given the testimony is evidence of the testimony, rendering the testimony evidence. The person's credibility is the evidence, not the claim.

So 1. is wrong, "testimony is evidence" is not clearly not true. If they just reason nameless testimony removed from a person it would clearly not be accepted. A person's testimony which has been rendered credibile by an investigation of the person is probabolistic evidence of their tesimony, which then inturn becomes accepted as evidence based on trust of the person who gave the testimony. If a person lies in their testimony they are punished for it, because they themselve take up a responsibility for their claims, and testimony.

I've grown extremely tired of explaining this over and over again. I'm sorry, but this is it, I'm done bothering with this. Clearly I am incapable of explaining this to you, as I am only repeating myself again and again in every recent post.

1015. Mental Disorders In Parents Linked To Autism In Children, Study Shows

Comment #175966 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 9:44 am

This seems right to me. I have two autistic young brothers, one 13 and another one 7, and my mother has had a history of depression and personalities disorders.

Only two autistics out of seven of us ain't bad.

1016. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175956 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 9:30 am

I love Sam's writing. Fantastic article.

1017. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175925 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 8:44 am

Perhaps it's just the way they do things in England and it's different in Canada/US, but this looks very much to me like (in England at least) giving evidence in court is the way it's put.

Science is universal, and the method is the same everywhere you go. If the common people use that language, and the court room tv shows do too, then they are merely mistaken.

I know. I don't disagree with you. I just get fussy about using a word like "truth". I'm pretty sure scientists don't do things like this. Like they don't say things like "evolution by natural selection is proven". They might say "evolution by natural selection has so much evidence for it that it is as close to proven as anything could be" or some other hedge that avoids the term proven.

Scientists call things facts and proven all the time. If you ask them what they mean by this, they will tell you that they mean that the evidence is strong enough to consider it true (which is the only definition of the word proof that applies to the word, I know you have said you can't find this definition, but it is in every dictionary I've looked in. At dictionary.com is it the very first definition. At m-w.com the first definition is 1 "a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact" which is the same thing. There are other ways to use the word, but this is the only proof we have for things about the world. We only have provisional truths.) so one can confidently accept it as a provisional truth, until anytime in the future when it is falsified.

Theists, and people that are anti-science attempt to obfuscate words like "proof" and "theory" and say that science doesn't prove anything, and theories are just ideas and guesses, they aren't facts. All of which is true in a misleading context. It's blatant dishonesty when they do this, because then a laymen looks up the word, and finds out that they are right in their misleading context. Sciences attempt to explain how the words are actually being used, but the generally public doesn't seem to appreciate context at all. They have used these tricks for years and they seem have lost zero steam. As long as people see a definition that agrees with them, they will ignore any explanation about how the words are really used.

In these situations it's hard, because you can't tell people they are wrong, you have to explain that they are confused, and not using the words with appreciation to context, which seems like a weak argument to some, so it goes ignored.

In the little paragraph I put there, I put exactly the same things as you did, except I said at the beginning "the claim" and then later "the claimant" rather than starting with the person. So if you can do it for the person, then you can do it for the claimant since they're the same thing.

A claim removed from a person is just a singular thing, how does it make sense to talk about establishing it's credibility probabolistically? How? We look at a person, and see how honest they have been in the past, and what they are likely to know. Explain how such a thing can be done for a claim removed from people.

1018. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175661 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Carto: about those "blatantly obvious" questions; remember it's also aimed at theists. If they can believe the Genesis stories, surely they can believe that buildings in America are 4000 years old, or that Bill Gates uses a computer?

I went to town with my Dad today, and I told him about that question, and he told me that Mourmons, along with a few other rare christian sects believe that the first civilizations where in north america at about that time, they believe some where more advanced than we are now apparently.

I don't know if what he said was true, but if it was, perhaps that question was aimed at people like that.

1019. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175649 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 7:24 pm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/testimony-episprob/

Turns out I'm not alone in thinking how I do. Even among people I can only assume are experts. Looks like the reductionists agree with you and the anti-reductionists agree with me. I'm happy to accept that both positions are reasonable and leave it at that.

Well I have said numerous times that I am talking about the epistemology of science, and that it is best for establishing reliable knowledge about the world. I never meant to imply that it was the only method (at least in principle, I am sure it is the only method that works), or the only epistemology, if that is what you thought. I only argued that it was uncomparably the best. That is the one I'm using, and that one does not include claims as evidence. Anti-reductionists are generally people that don't have evidence for claims they'd like to be true, or would like to believe. It is not an epistemological standard that has been used in any proven reliable method for arriving at accurate information about the world. All because a system or method is devised in no way implies it works or it's useful. Or all the theologians would be evidence that theology isn't a complete waste of time.

You mean the bit where they say "I'm giving evidence in court"? What should they have said? "I'm giving testimony"?

Actually, the latter is precisely what they do say.

All I meant here was that it's unlikely that the treatment they suggest is the best possible. It might be the best available or the best possible currently, but I suspect that medical science will lead us further in the future. When doctors were advocating leeches and bloodletting, their claims then may have been believed to be true, but they weren't. In summary, it may be the truth that the doctor's claim is the right thing for you to do, but it might also not be. They do make mistakes. It can make a claim likely (very likely), but it doesn't make it truth (necessarily).

"Necessary truths" only exist in abstractions, not in the real world. We in the real world are only privy to provisional truths. What we know about the world is only ever implied to be true, not necessitated. So expecting more is simply expecting the impossible, and thus unreasonable.

Doctors definitely aren't as good, knowledgable, or helpful as they will be in the future, and in some rare causes they may even do more harm than good. The fact remains that going to see a doctor is a lot better an idea than going to see a crossing guard when you're sick. This was even true in the past when they knew dick-all about medicine, and what made people sick. Going to a witch doctor would still often be better than going to see a cook. Even if your chances of him helping you get better are extremely low, as long as there is slightly higher chance of him helping than a cook helping, then it is best to pay him a visit opposed to the cook.

Why's that not something similar done for a claim?

Because I'm unaware of a method for how it could be accomplished. If you have one, then I'm all ears (or eyes, I should say).

1020. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175571 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 3:57 pm

This is attiquitely titled. Beck says that Stein is one of the most intelligent person he knows. I feel sorry for him if that is the case.

1021. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175420 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 11:29 am

I cracked up for the one that said Alexander the great could likely fly and had other magic powers.

I found many of the questions rather odd and hard to answer. Like all the ones asking what people thought of me...how the hell am I suppose to know what people think of me? No one is around right now so I couldn't ask anyone either.

I also found the ones about liking to look at your body, or yourself in the mirror to be odd. If I said no, it seems like I am saying that I don't like it, as if I have a problem, but if I say yes, then it makes me look like a narcissist. I had to say I don't kow.

Also those ones like "I should get all that I deserve" and things like that, I don't even know what that is support to mean, or the respect that is due to me? Those are too vague, I need somekind of context to know what they are suppose to mean.

The stupid questions were funny though.

1022. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175358 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 9:57 am

No, it does not establish the credibility of the claim, because credibility is established probabolistically, and requires past iterations of similar kinds. A claim is a singular thing. A person is not, you can estalish what the odds are that they are telling the truth, and know what they are talking about based on how trustworthy and credible, they have been in the past, and what they are likely to know based on what they have studied, and spent time learning in the past. Nothing similar can be done for a claim.

You don't have to believe me (clearly you haven't to my dismay) though I don't think I have said anything even remotely controversial. I would think that anyone who has watched a court show knows this (I took a law class in highschool, though I didn't know the epistemology of the process until quite awhile later, gathered from philosophy.) to be true.

I've already told you, context, context, context. You cannot prove you are cooler than ice scientifically by pointing to a definition of cool like "aloof" I have thoroughly explained the words and how I am using them.

Then you simply don't think that a doctors credibility is enough to establish the truth of their claim (notice you have said this independent of any specific claims) because of information you have gathered that harms their credibility in your eyes. Well, that's fine, but I'm Canadian, and our doctors aren't in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical companies, so I'm good.

There is always a possibility of anything, another favored theist tactic. There is a possibility that there are a million tiny fairies on my shoulder. I just highly doubt it. There is a possibility that I've misread, miswatched, and misunderstand everything I've ever taken in about the epistemology of the scientific method, how induction works, and how anything about the world is established. I just highly doubt it.

Pfft, I've already accepted I'm incapable of changing your mind, that is why I asked you to actually read about the epistemology of science, also about induction well your at it.

I'm not interested in arguing it with you. I've just been repeating myself for the past few posts. I've got nothing new to add.

1023. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175216 by Mitchell Gilks on May 4, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Again, those are issues of credibility. I know that scientists are credibile because of past expierence,and the fact that science offers demonstrated, and clear results. I have good reason for believing scientists, and thinking they are credibile. If it were the claims alone than it wouldn't matter if it were a scientist that told me or a crossing guard, this clearly is not the case.

Same thing with doctors. I have good reason to believe that the information gathered from doctors is reliable, and credible. I would doubt the exact same claims from a plummer.

I am not accepting their claims without evidence, or even remotely taking the claims as evidence in themselves. As I have outlined numerous times, for testomonials, and claims, we establish the credibility of the person giving the claims.

The claims in and of themselve only set how much evidence, or confirmation we will require before accepting them. Unless the claims contradict something we know is true about the world, or it is more likely that the claimant was mistaken than that the claim is true, then merely establishing the credibility of the claimant is evidence enough to accept the claim as true.

All of this I have covered.

1024. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175113 by Mitchell Gilks on May 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm

8. Comment #175102 by gd_edi

Humans are the only animals we positively know have subjective consciousness? I would have thought that one's own self is the only entity we 'know' to have subjective consciousness, with all others being automata of various degrees of complexity.

I thought the exact same thing. Beyond someone telling me they have subjective consciousness I have no more reason to believe they do than my cat does. Someone telling me something is true hardly is enough to say that it is positively true.

Though I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue, and he would admit the mistake instantly if challenged.

1025. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175101 by Mitchell Gilks on May 4, 2008 at 12:04 pm

I'm talking about induction, Epeeist. I'm talking about the type of evidence used in science, or used to establish anything about the world. Deductive reasoning is tautological, and does not give any new information, it merely rearranges information we already possess drawing logical inferences between them.

The way the premises in a deductive argument are rendered sound are through justifying them through inductive processes. A deductive argument that is valid, is useless if not sound.

I looked into the paper you suggested and it seemed to be about a priori evidence and reasoning as I assumed by the title. I am refering to a posteriori evidence and reasoning.

1026. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175098 by Mitchell Gilks on May 4, 2008 at 11:57 am

Context, context, Ty_Webb, as I have attempted to explain numerous times. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence in anyway for establishing anything about the objective world. There are different kinds of evidence, and different applications of the word, in the way I was, and am using it, it is not evidence.

You can't prove that you are cooler than ice scientifically by pointing at a definition of cool like "aloof".

1027. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174890 by Mitchell Gilks on May 3, 2008 at 6:30 pm

407. Comment #174688 by MPhil

Her understanding of philosophy is surpassed by every 1st year student.

Worse than mine? =D

I've never actually read anything by her, but everytime her name comes up I get the impression that it would be a waste of my time.

1028. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #174830 by Mitchell Gilks on May 3, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Dr Benway, the first thing that you addressed about confidence I covered, when we lack the ability to varify a claim in any meaningful way, then we examine the claimant, and establish any amount of credibility. In turn the established credibility can work as evidence for the claim. The claim, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything.

The second thing you said I also feel that I already addressed. Evidence and proof are what we require to convince others, or be convinced ourselves. We do not require it for things we are already convinced of. When we are challenged about things, then we need to provide evidence for others, when we don't believe something, then we require evidence ourselves, or when we have reason to doubt something, we look for things to better establish, or affirm our believe in it's truth. These are the only situations were evidence is needed, or used.

I reject absolutist concepts of proof, knowledge, or truth. We only have our senses to establish anything about the world, not presupposing that the information you are receiving from them is accurate denies you evidence of anykind, knowledge of anykind, and truth of anykind. It is true that I could be a brain in a vat, or in some matrix scenerio. I accept the sensory data that I receive as evidence enough to establish that this is not true. This may be false, I fully accept that. When I see, first hand, a man stab another man todeath, I take this as proof that the event took place, I conceivably could be mistaken. In fact, as I said before, in some rare cases it may be more justifiable to reject first hand experience in favor of rational sensibilities, and prior knowledge. If it is less likely that what you are experiencing is real, than that you are hellucinating, or some trick is at work, then that is what you should go with, until you have reason to reject prior knowledge, and understanding of the world in favor of your experience.

As I said before, we use principles of parsimony, and occam's razor, and accept the most likely scenerio, or the thing that would be the smallest miracle.

Something that is proven, doesn't necessarily have to be correct in the sense that I am using it. Only tautological, or logical proofs are necessarily true. Everything we know about the world is inductively arrived at, meaning it is only implied to be true. The possibility we are wrong about anything is always there.

These are all wide, and open ended issues, and one could spend a lifetime discussion epistomology, though under how I, and I am willing to bet the majority of the philosophical, and scientific community understand knowledge, truth, proof and evidence, when talking about the objective world; I think that everything I said is correct in that context.

I hope I cleared things up. Feel free to ask more questions, and tell me where, and if I have made a mistake. If you think I have.

Thanks for your imput.

1029. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174815 by Mitchell Gilks on May 3, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Who'd interbreed with them? Did you see that skull? I can only imagine what trolls their women must have been. I doubt even the furry community would want any Neanderthal lovin'.

1030. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174793 by Mitchell Gilks on May 3, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Oh the humanity!! Won't someone please think of the childred?

1031. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174707 by Mitchell Gilks on May 3, 2008 at 10:02 am

I call shenanigan's on them. Shenanigan's I say!

1032. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174327 by Mitchell Gilks on May 2, 2008 at 6:37 am

378. Comment #174325 by sewells

What is an atheistic philosophy exactly? Also, if there were atheistic philosophies simply because they do not involve gods, then doesn't that create a dichotomy of only two possible types of philosophies?

It is plainly a stupid point to address. No one blames their actions on the fact that their philosophies were also a-fairiest. It is merely an example of correlation. RD is often scoffed at when he made the example of both Hitler and Stalin having mustashes, and if that caused them to be evil, but his reductio ad absurdum is entirely valid and sound. Unless they can draw a direct causation between them being atheists, and also being people that killed a lot of people, then it remains simply an example of correlation.

It is not RD's fault that these idiots don't know how to draw proper logical inferences.

1033. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #174310 by Mitchell Gilks on May 2, 2008 at 5:23 am

Ty_Webb you are erratic in your context. You are jumping between diffent types of proof, and diffent types of evidence without given any allusion to the change in context.

Evidence enough to establish something as true is the only kind of proof that applies to the world (by this I am to establish the physical existence or phenomenological event of something in reality), nothing about the world can be proven absolutely, and I never claimed otherwise, I infact explicated that evidence only implies our conclusions not necessitates them. I think, as I said before, that your problem stems from a lack of understand of epistomoloy.

Evidence and proof is what we require, or offer for second hand accounts, we do not require evidence for first hand accounts. When you have wittnessed something first hand, you gather evidence to convince others, not yourself, you were there.

I already talked about people in court, and how they establish credibility of the wittness. You ignored that. I also already explained that nothing would make court without actual evidence such as I described, but of course including a body. This is now going in circles, because when I originally make the objections, and gave the explanations, they went ignored.

Your attempt to obfuscate behind an ambiguous definition of proof was already pre-empted by one of my previous posts. I already explained what kind of evidence works to establish proof, and what proof means in that context. Igoring that is intellectually dishonest.

Also I have showed more than my fair share of charity in this conversation, even entertaining examples that do not involve claims, but instead physical things removed from individuals, and irrelevent to what they have to say to try to prove claims are evidence. Clear false analogies, I did so to explain about those types of things so you could see how they are different. I could have just shot them down instantly and demanded examples that actually involve claims.

Ad hoc examples, false analogies and invented stories are not a valid form of counter argument. Arguments involve clarifying your language, showing logical pathways between whatever you are trying to link, and addressing and correcting any problems pointed out by anyone. A counter argument involves showing how the criticisms are wrong, or how they don't effect your conclusion. You have done none of this.

It is also intellectually dishonest to ask what the fallacy is, I outlined three mutually exclusive premises, that if one is false, your conclusion is denied, one of which was the appeal to the people fallacy. You knew and know this. Now claiming you don't know what I was talking about it further dishonesty.

1034. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174306 by Mitchell Gilks on May 2, 2008 at 4:57 am

324. Comment #174121 by Bonzai

I understand what you're saying, but I was born and raised in Hong Kong. I came to Canada when I was 17, after finishing high school there.

You have a better command of the english language than I do, but then you are a lot better educated than I am.

So what are your plans for the future if you don't mind me asking? Did you fall in love with the great white north? Plan on staying?

I have plans to live and visit other places in the world, but I think Canada will always be my home. Not like I'm big on nationalism, or I think Canada is the best country in the world or anything (despite always scoring extremely high in the annual quality of life survey). I just like it, though I think we have a lot of things would could improve, mainly our crazy currect priminister. I'll take the Liberal's money corruption over the Conservative's crazy and everything else corruption any day of the week.

(*Canadian film festival*)

"I don't want to hurt you, so I won't."

THE END.

1035. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #174096 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Evidence is indirect information that implies a connection between things.

If I walk into a room and you are stabbing a guy todeath, that isn't evidence that you stabbed the guy, that is direct observation of the event.

Evidence would be if I walked into a room and found a guy stabbed to death, and a knife with finger prints, blood everywhere, foot prints and so forth. I compile the evidence and it implies a conclusion, when I establish enough of it the implication is strong enough to inspire belief, thus it is proven.

We don't need to prove things that we know are true, and we don't require evidence for first hand accounts.

I'm blown away that you think an jawbone is evidence for an animal's existence, I misunderstood your example, now it's even more absurd. I thought you meant it was evidence for what everything besides the jawbone might have looked like. Finding a jawbone confirms that there must have been an animal that it came from. We aren't skeptical of the idea that bones come from dead animals until we have a few, that is not in question.

Direct information doesn't imply a conclusion, it establishes it.

People also don't make claims about animals they think might have existed and then try to establish evidence for them (at least not sane ones). We go and dig bones up, and we establish facts about the creatures based on the information the bones offer. Evolution does allow us to make predictions about what we should find in the fossil record, but then the bones we find are not evidence of the animals, they are a varification of the animals, and evidence for the truth of the theory that allowed for the prediction.

The thread I linked, I am using the same avatar, but what I'm sayings is not important, I wanted you to notice how closely your style of argument follows along with the threat starter. I thought that should raise some red flags for you.

I have outlined what evidence is, and why claims are not evidence in and of themselves. You continue to invent stories to try to rationalise that they are. There isn't anything I can do to this. I have reasoned out why your wrong, showed why it makes no logical sense, and have consistently knocked down every story you have invented. You ignore it, and just move on to invent more stories, without addressing anything that I've had to say. I'm confident in your imaginations ability to keep pumping out stories, and I haven't the desire to keep knocking them down, so this conversation has long since lost any amount of productivity.

I don't want you to admit you are wrong to me, I don't need an ego boost, or anything. I do hope that you will examine what I've said and give it some thought, and perhaps read some more professional opinions on epistomology. I am not the most articulate, or friendliest of people. I am often forceful, and inspire more confrontation than is necessary, making people less likely to listen to me.

So clearly I can't convince you of this no matter what, so I would just suggest that you search out more informed opinions, and more eloguent and articulate explanations than I can offer.

I wish you luck with that.

1036. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174001 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 12:22 pm

I didn't know that it was your native language, because I only knew you were Chinese, living in Canada, a number of things could be meant by that.

For instance, I find it odd when people that were born in Canada but aren't white are still refered to as being from a country that the majority shares their ethnicity. None of us originated in Canada, not even natives, so I always find it weird.

According to wiki you need to know between 3-4 thousand to read and write Chinese fluently. That's a lot.

I suppose it was a stupid question, it would be like asking me how many words I know.

I never considered that most people probably don't keep track when learning them like I am.

1037. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173985 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 12:07 pm

I just looked into Chinese characters a little, to see how different it is. It seems extremely hard, 47 thousand characters...I thought that 3007 was bad enough.

How many do you know Bonzai?

I'm up to 172 Kanji symbols. Though you likely know this, there are 1945 Joyo, or common use Kanji that they teach kids in school in Japan, though I plan on learning all 3007, also all the Kana symbols as well.

I don't think it would be humanly possible to memorize 47 thousand symbols.

1038. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173945 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 11:40 am

Actually, the number system was invented by the ancient Hindus. "Kanjl" is the Japanese way of saying Han (Kan) words(ji), meaning Chinese characters. They were invented by the Chinese long before Buddhism was brought to China.The Japanese adopted some of them into their writing system.

I misread this when I was reading about it on wiki:

"The symbols for 1 to 9 in the Hindu-Arabic numeral system evolved from the Brahmi numerals. Buddhist inscriptions from around 300 BC use the symbols which became 1, 4 and 6. One century later, their use of the symbols which became 2, 7 and 9 was recorded."

Damn, I feel like an idiot now I see that I misread, or didn't remember correctly the park about the Kanji in the book I'm reading too:

"These were further transformed and
stylized down through the centuries, so that by the time the Japanese were
introduced to the kanji by Buddhist monks from Korea and started experimenting
with ways to adapt the Chinese writing system to their own language
(about the fourth to seventh centuries of our era), they were already dealing
with far more ideographic and abstract forms."

I was completely wrong on both accounts.

1039. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173911 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

I don't think Steve was wrong necessarily either. I have seen him jump on people more than once that said all religion is irrational or wrong, when he defended Buddhism.

The thing about this though I think, is that buddhism, removed from metaphyical and supernatural beliefs, or the requirement of strict adherence isn't something I would consider a religion at all. Merely a philosophy, or some useful and enlightening wisdom( even contribution to the progress of humanity. Buddhists monks have invented the number system we use, and I learnt a short while ago after beginning to learn to read the Kanji, that they invented the Kanji as well. Which is utilized all over Asia if I'm not mistaken. I think that is amazing). Same with Tao/Daoism. They are often refered to as such, but they do not fit the definition I use for religion. Nor do I think they fit the definitions of very many people that frequent this site.

I would argue that this is a slippery slope, if we allow things like Daoism to be construe as a religion, or any philosophical outlook on life, or core beliefs someone lives by, then it looses all meaning, and might as well be disregarded for more specific words.

Perhaps "disengenuous" was too strong of a word, I think more a lack of appriciationg for how the word is used by the majority of people on the site, and the four horsemen themselves.

Also, clearly we are not the only ones that think this. There are plenty of secular jews, that attend temple, and stict stronge to their heritage, and still adhere to cultural traditions. They though no longer consider themselves religious because they do not adhere to, or believe in the supernatural or metaphysical apsects of Judaism.

So, I think the vast majority of people, not just on this site also use a definition of religion in the sense Bonzai is.

1040. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173851 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 9:42 am

I think that "religion" is a word ripe with ambiguity, and can easily be construed as anything, but that it playing a word game. I think that Bonzai is correct in saying that on this site, we presuppose a certain rigid definition of religion, as refering to supernatural/metaphysical unjustfied and irrational belief systems.

Otherwise there would never be any reason to use the word "religion" as it can be accurately contrued as any belief system involving dogmas and tenets.

I think it is disengenuous to try to say Bonzai was wrong by attempting to obfuscate and hide behind the ambiguity of the word.

1041. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173787 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 8:45 am

238. Comment #173691 by Cartomancer

If anything that's a hangover from the traditional world view too, though the changing cultural dynamics do produce some interesting interplay and creativity with the attitude.

I don't think this is completely accurate. I think that Samurai, and upperclass traditional Japanese culture did show an extreme rigidity and adherence to concepts of honour, obidence, and clear distinction between what is right and wrong.

I think that Chinese influences such as Tao/Daoism Confucianism, and Buddhism is what inspired a more nuanced and fluid view of ethics and right and wrong.

If anything I think that western philosophical and ethical thought has a hell of a lot to gain from eastern philosophical and ethical thought. I have read the Tao Te Ching, but I have not yet read any buddhists or confucious works, though I definitely plan to.

1042. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173686 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 5:55 am

Sigh, clearly you aren't willing to listen to reason. Especially now that you are using a "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal.

I did answer everything you had to say, then I called it silly, and a waste of my time. I explained how your attempting to qualify evidence in such a way that you can have it a le carte doesn't work, because it depends on the person, you ignored this, and fabricated more silly examples without directly addressing my question at all. You did not even mention the three mutually exclusive premises that I asked you to address.

A jawbone is not evidence of what an animal looks like, a jawbone carries certain taxidermic information about what a creature looks like. That is like saying that a page of a book is evidence of what type of story it is. It isn't evidence, it is direct information. (Notice how I actually did address your premises, and reject one, giving reasons, and explaining why it's wrong.)

This also ignores the obvious, that if a million people claimed to have wittnessed something, it is a hell of a lot more believable than if one person claimed to have wittness it. The more wittnesses, the more believable, and the more credible it becomes. It doesn't increase or even hold an evidence value of the proported event, but as I explained before, when evidence can't be established credibility of the claimant or claimants is sought, and the number of claimants directly does increase the likeliness it is true, and credible information. That is how every court on earth works to my knowledge.

The intellectual dishonesty, evasian and unwillingness to listen to reason has become insufferable. This will be my last post.

Here, this is a link to a thread on a philosophy forum, with someone I had a discussion with who also had an idea in their head and wasn't willing to listen to reason, even after it was demonstrated logically incoherent.

Perhaps from a neutral position you will see things more clearly. Try to notice the parallels in how you both attempt to argue.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/soft-proof-of-a-higher-existence-29803.html

Well, I've given up on you. I originally didn't want to be pedantic and anal about it, and instead just wanted to explain why this was so, as I've been told that just quoting fallacies and definitions doesn't really help people understand, but after reason had failed I resorted to just that. Now that you have rejected logic and the way the words are normally used, then I have nothing left I can add. Ja-ne.

1043. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173673 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 5:20 am

230. Comment #173623 by Ichneumonid

Sama is just a more formal version of San. It is a common misconception that Sensei means teacher, it does not. It is an honourific used for all forms of professions, craftsmen, or even just the learned or intellectuals.

It is used for teachers, doctors, politicians, artists, authors, and all types of craftsmen.

The reason sama isn't used in conjunction with Kami when refering to other gods is because Kami isn't used as their name, it's what they are. Though when using their name they would use Sama.

Sama is not for someone you don't know well, it all depends on who they are. Young girls are refered to with "chan" by people whether they know them well or not, and young boys "kun". Celebrities are often given nick-names, and when nicknames are used the honourific "chan" is always used, because it's cutesy. People you just meet that are around your age or older, you'd only use San. Sama would only be used if they really looked up to them. chan and kun are not sex related as many people think, since chan is almost never used for boys, and kun rarely for girls, but this is because kun is formiliar, while chan is cutesy, and guys generally don't like being called cutesy.

Superiors, in school, the military, or an office setting are refered to say Senpai, and inferiors as Kouhai. Like Sensei, Senpai can be used alone, as a title without being attached to the name as a suffix, while Kouhai can as well, but it is considered rude to do so.

A misuse of honourifics are be construed as insulting, like a misappropriation of a title one does not deserve is seen as ironic, or sarcastic. So it can be easily taken as rude to over use Sama.

1044. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173590 by Mitchell Gilks on April 30, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Gahh... What did you not understand about the three options?

Firstly, math is tautological, meaning it is true by virtue of the way the terms are defined. It is conlusively proven that 2 2=4, because that is how the terms are defined and work. Many conclusions in math are extremely complex, but as long as the rules and followed, and no mistakes are made, then conclusive proofs are established. They are necessarily and absolutely true, because of the way the terms are defined.

Just as it is necessarily and absolutely truth that a married man cannot symotaneously be a bachelor. It defies logic.

You are attempting to have it a la carte. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. Either claims are evidence that can establish proof after enough is accumulated, or they aren't evidence. There is no number involved, proof is subjective. Something is proven to you when it inspires belief, there is no objective standard of proof. When enough evidence has been established to make you believe it is true, then it is proven to you.

Clearly people accept the bible as evidence, and because of all the people that believe it, and all the other non-evidence they accept it as true. More intelligent theologians knew this is ballocks, and none of that constitutes proof, thus the concept of faith. An excuse to believe without proof. They use this out because they know that claims don't constitute evidence of their truth.

Stop giving examples, and attempting to explain your way out of this. I have outlined three mutually exclusive premises, where one logically must be wrong, just say which you reject. You cannot just trying to explain how you can be forwarding a logically impossible yet coherent idea. You need to demonstrate that it does not defy logic. The only way this can be done is to address my three mutually exclusive premises, and show how one is wrong. You cannot ignore then and try to invent some system where it only defies logic after some many claims are accumulated...

You example, I will answer, but stop attempting to wiggle out of this problem. No more of these absurd attempts and just answer my question, explain where I have made the mistake, don't try to invent rationalisations or define your way into victory "claims equal evidence, but only up until a certain point, so it doesn't prove anything" c'mon, give me a break. This is just gettig silly.

Your example is simply, we use rules of parsimoni. What is the simplist explanation and most likely explanation? That the note you find just happens to confirm one of your explanation but is wrong, and the other explanation is true? Or that it is right, and the explanation you had that jives with it is the one no most likely to be true?

The principle to determine this was parsimoni, and the evidence supporting the usefulness and reliability of parsimoni is abundant.

The claim itself was not evidence, and wouldn't be by itself, the rules of investigation, dictate how one should act in those situations, and they themselves are supported by their success in the past.

Even the most unevident and miraculous claim can be accepted with absolutely no evidence if its not being true would be a bigger miracle.

These decisions are determined by the rules of a methodology, or system, and the burden of evidence for implamenting them rests on the system or methodology, and the fact that it has had such success in the past is the evidence that justifies its implamentation.

Now, stop attempting to invent sceneroes where you're right, or play with words and definitions, and just answer my question, show me where I'm wrong, or just give up the ghost already.

If I come in to read again, and you refer to attempt to address the logic problems, or admit your wrong. Then I'm going to conclude that you are immune to rational discussion and give up. I am stunned that you are still arguing this. Even the crazy theologians that think atheism caused the holocaust don't claim this.

1045. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173582 by Mitchell Gilks on April 30, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Not that I am in anyway qualified to talk about Japanese culture or history in anyway that would reflect the understanding of even the most laymen of Japanese citizens, but since I do spend all my time emersed in Japanese pop-culture I would like to offer some of my observations to what you have said Cartomancer.

The first thing you mention is the ability for Japanese people to mesh shintoism buddhism and christianity so seemlessly, and to seem to have no problem with this. That is something I picked up on quite awhile ago. They use shinto ritualistic expressions in their daily lives that have all but lost their original meanings, for instance they say "itadakimasu" before eating. Buddhists attend christian schools, still carrying buddhists beads, without anyone really saying anything. It really stood out to me because I didn't see anything like that in north america. Not like religious schools would refuse entry to non-christians, but they would definitely make noise about anything that wasn't completely christian.

The second thing you mention about how hiarchial they were historically, this is something I came to realise must be true after beginning to learn to speak the language, which is extremely hiarchial. They have several ways to say things as simple as "I" depending on formality (of course all the honourifics allude to this fact as well). Though this is noticably changing in pop-culture Japan, much of the hiarchial language is archaic to modern Japanese people. At least if how they talk is accurately reflected by their television programs that take place in modern times. You can see a huge drift in formal language between setting taking place in the past compared to settings taking place in modern times.

I was going to fervently disagree about the simple mindedness and rigidity of their views on good and evil, and there being one obvious right choice in every situation, though luckily I went to go watch the daily show before replying and had time to think. If talking about pre 1950 Japan, then that is completely true. Though I would argue that western nations were not all that much more nuanced or thoughtful in those respects at those times either.

Nationalism, and hero-worship was worldwide. Honour and glory was propagandized all over north america and europe. Durring parades for the war effort young women would hand out chicken feathers to men that were within the age to be a soldier but were not soldiers. They also very much painted the opposition as evil, and us as the good guys. Prison camps were established were "enemy aliens" where inprisoned (being anyone who bared a physical relation to members of the "central powers") So I don't think that it is fair to say those things about them as if it wasn't true of other countries.

I completely concede that Japan was indeed moreso, with a entire class of citizens who basically lived and breathed "honour" and loyalty. Growing up with glorious stories of ancestors who died for honour, even took their own lives in dishonour to preserve the honour of the family. I just think that it is fair to point out that peer pressure, nationality, glorification of fighting for your country, and the demonization of the enemy, and simplification of otherwise nuanced and complicated events was not unique to Japan.

In modern times I think that Japanese pop-culture reflects that less so than north american pop-culture. That at least tv and movies reflect a clear cut line between good and evil, and obvious righteous action and evil action where the line is far more nuanced and blurred in Japanese culture. With modern heroes out-right challenging and dissenting from old views on honour, obediance, and giving up your life, or taking anyone else's. Often having no good guys or bad guys, just people doing what they think is right, and being wrong and right in their own ways. Something that is extremely rare in western pop-culture.

So I did realise that you were talking about Japan during the war, and what you said no doubt accurately reflected Japanese culture at the time, though I think it is far different now than it was then. I just thought that needed to be said.

What you say about the Japanese's seeming inability, or lack of desire to seperate supernaturalism from science and technology is completely accurate from my experience, and something I find somewhat annoying. I have seen very very few si-fi produced in Japan that wasn't inseperately tangled with supernaturalism. At least in pop-culture the people tend to talk about science and magic as if it were inseperable things (in the west this happens sometimes, The Matrix, or Star Wars, for instance, but it is far more rare). All those giant robots you see running around, well about 99% of them are inexplicible magic giant robots. Even good well written si-fi that I like almost always has some elements of supernaturalism.

I should also mention that christianity is not universally well received or left alone in Japanese pop-culture, it is not alien or all that rare to have clear anti-christian themes. Especially in setting talking place between the late 19th to earily twentith centeries, where the church had quite a strangle hold on the Japanese economy. At least that is what I have gathered from how it is presented.

The thing about Gods you mention, I find they use the word Kami quite loosely, I always find it funny that they refer to the christian god as "Kami-sama". I would think that god being omniscent and the creator of the universe would qualify as sensei, but I guess not.

1046. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173390 by Mitchell Gilks on April 30, 2008 at 5:48 pm

You said claims are evidence. Claims in and of themselves.

You neglected to answer any of my questions and instead just reiterated that I'm wrong.

I thought that what I wrote was quite well reasoned, it is annoying to have it just dismissed without being addressed and your assertion reiterated.

As least answer my question, since proof is evidence enough to establish something as true by definition, and claims are evidence. How many people need to claim something before it is proven?

I suspect you will reject the definition of proof and hide behind obfuscation in one of the other definitions, and claim it to be a semantic problem, so I will pre-empt this.

There are a few different concepts and application of the word "proof". There are mathematical, logical, and everyday proofs. The first two don't apply to the world, while the last one does. The only sense in which the word proof applies to the world is in the sense of evidence enough to establish something as true.

It is an "appeal to the people fallacy" to suggest that something is true because a certain number of people say so.

This all being said, it means one of these things must be true

1. Claims are not evidence
2. My definition of proof is mistaken
3. The logical fallacy is mistaken.

I am 100% sure that 2 and 3 are false (yay for tautological and deductive certainty). Both of which are easily looked into by you. That being said, it is logically impossible that 1 is also false, it then logically must be true.

If order to reject this, you must either reject proof, or logic.

I really hope that not admitting your wrong isn't worth that to you.

So far your discussion format has followed quite closely to so many theists that I've talked to.

1. Get an idea in your head.
2. Say it's true
3. Refuse to defend it
4. Constantly ask questions of anyone who disagrees, moving away from them instantly when they are answered to ask more.
5. Nelgect to answer questions forwarded to you.
6. Continue to assert anyone who disagrees is wrong
7. Continue to reiterate the truth of your original assertion.


I think I have attiqutely demonstrated that claims in and of themselves are not evidence of anykind. I think you should either show me where I have made the mistake, or just admit your wrong.

1047. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173352 by Mitchell Gilks on April 30, 2008 at 4:55 pm

It's sad how these guys all think they have such great points to make.

1048. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173324 by Mitchell Gilks on April 30, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Also, the whole using the bible against the theist, that depends on what you mean. If their believes about the bible, as in, what it says, what it implies, or that their ideas of an omnixxx god is coherent with what is written, then it is perfectly reasonable to challenge them on this issue, and argue what it says. Whether it's true or not doesn't come into it. The semantics is all that is being argued, or the consistency and coherence.

1049. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173322 by Mitchell Gilks on April 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm

There are some fundamental problems with this however, and I will point them out.

When we only have hearsay, and anecdote, then we try to establish credibility. We exam the person, and decide if they are more likely to be telling the truth, or more likely to be lying. The events that the claim proports are out of our hands, we can't establish evidence for it, so we decide if it is justified believing the person.

If a claim were the evidence, then it would be so regardless of who uttered it, and it would not be less so, or more so believable depending on a person's credibility. Clearly this is not the case. You don't believe the word of someone who lies, not because the claim has changed when they say it, but because you know that they aren't worry of trust.

Never in court, or in life do we exam claims that can't be evidentiarily established removed from the people that made them. Because we can't establish whether or not they are true, or gather evidence in their favor, we instead investigate the person, and decide if they are worthy of our trust. You can establish probabolistic evidence of this based on how truthful they have been in the past, and things of that nature.

Secondly, the definition of proof, the only one that applies to the world "evidence enough to establish something as true" contradicts the claim that ancedotes can't prove something. Because they are evidence according to you, then logically you should be able to establish enough to proof something. So, how many people need to say something is true before it is proven?

What you are confusing, is credibility, and evidence. They are different things. One justifies our willingness to accept a claim without evidence, and the other is capable of proving something truth given enough of it.

One involves investigating the people involved, and evaluating whether or not you are justified believing them indepedent of their claim and the other involves investigating their claims independent of the person that uttered it.

In the first case, it is justified in rejecting claims uttered by known liars, and people not trustworthy. In the second case it is justified rejecting claims that evidence cannot be established for.

If a claim were evidence independent of who uttered it, then the claim of a liar is equal evidence as the claim of a truthful person. We both know this isn't true.

Now, when a claim is made by a truthful person that contradicts something that we know about reality, or doesn't jive with it, then either evidence for their claims has to be established, and your world veiw corrected, or their claim must be rejected. In cases where no evidence can be established, then the most parsimonious and reasonable explanation, is that they were merely wrong or mistaken.

Only when a claim doesn't contradict what is known about reality do we even bring the person into it, and decide if they are credible, and worthy of your trust. This is because if their claims involves things we know can take place, and do not contradict what we know about reality, then all that is in question is the person's credibility. So that is what needs to be established. When it does contradict what we know about reality, then we need evidence for the events proported in the claim.

1050. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173198 by Mitchell Gilks on April 30, 2008 at 1:52 pm

No, I already answered that question too.

"I couldn't, there would be nothing to investigate. What would I investigate? Would I just read the bible and decide if it sounded right to me? How could I possibly go about gathering any evidence? Or even begin to varify any of it's claims? If I were asked to do that, I'd ask them how am I suppose to do that exactly?"

There is nothing I can think of that would work as evidence of a specific event happening at one time. Though if we lived in a universe were magical stuff happened, then presumably it happens more than once.

Even if unicorns were proven to exist, it would not automatically mean that everyone who claimed to have seen one really did, it would just be a lot easier to believe them.

Likewise, if evidence could be established for events of a similar kind, it might not mean the claims are true, but it would make the claims a whole lot less controversial.

If I told you that I had a grapefruit for breakfast this morning, you have no way of determining if that was true, or gathering any amount of empiricle evidence, but since the claim is not controversial, and nothing about it seems unlikely or improbable, then it is reasonable to just trust me, because I take on a certain responsibility when I make a claim. You will never have evidence for my claim, or a way of varifying it. All you will have is my word, and you can chose to trust me or not. The fact that I made the claim is in no way evidence of its truth.

However if I told you that I ate a dinosaur for breakfast, you would have good reason to think I did not. That would violate what you know to be true about the world, or at least not jive with it. Thus it is a controversial claim, that requires evidence to support it before it would be reasonable to accept it as true.

So how could be establish evidence for the events recorded in the bible? By making it's claims uncontroversial, and believable. It would not prove they happen, that is impossible, they have long since taken (or didn't take) place, and there is no way in which we could investigate the specific claims. Though if we could establish that they were quite possible, it would allow someone to reasonably accept them as true without evidence, because they would not be a controversial claim. It would then be trivial if they happened or not, because we would already know that god and magic is real, and christianity is true, so it wouldn't really matter if the specific events took place.

So for the specific events, it is impossible to gather evidence for. For supernaturalism, or christianity, it would require that they could produce predicted, testible, and repeatable supernatural events in a controlled environment. Like praying the limps of amputees back on. Maybe they could get god to come to earth and tell us all it's true. Things like that.

One of course couldn't gather that type of evidence for past events, they are overwith, and can't be reproduced, or examined in a controlled environment.