Houdini, Randi and God

[David Sklansky]

One last quick comment before I'm off.

When Houdini went around the country exposing how some mediums were using tricks to make it look like they were communicating with the dead, he pretty much convinced people that ALL mediums were charlatans. Same with the Amazing Randi years later. But both these magicians investigated only a tiny fraction of mediums. So wouldn't it stand to reason that they only showed that MOST mediums were frauds?

Well of course the answer is no and I won't insult the intelligence of people here with an explanation. But the question now becomes why similar reasoning is not persuasive to those who wonder whether supernatural events attributable to God are sometimes actually legit. When one after another are investigated and debunked, why don't many people realize that it is likely that they all can be debunked.

[Matt R.]

Consider the following:

We have two sets of events, X and Y. Initially, both sets are attributed to God and are deemed miraculous events. Now, hypothetically, let's say events belonging to group X are actually miracles, while events belonging to group Y are not. When we set out to debunk the claims of the believers, which group do you think we'll report on? Well, they'll all be from group Y. For events belonging to set X, we'll simply say "Welp, I dunno what's going on here", "God did it", or if we're kinda dishonest we'll ignore it entirely. I think you're giving science far too much credit as being able to explain every single event in a logical framework where we can definitively say we understand it.

I am reminded of a post awhile back regarding reincarnation. One of the more highly regarded "skeptics" around (I think it was Sagan?) essentially said that he could think of no explanation for many cases of reincarnation that he studied. And, that it was worthy of further investigation. I'm guessing there are a LOT of cases out there of things where science doesn't quite have a handle on what's going on. Dismissing those and saying, "Well, clearly all these other cases have been debunked, therefore it's logical to think that all of them can be debunked" isn't a very useful way of getting at the truth. It's easy to dismiss data points that you don't like because they don't fit your model of how the world should work.

Not saying all the non-debunked cases are "real miracles" either. I'm just saying we should expect at least some of them to be debunked (regardless of whether some are the real deal or not), and of course the ones we hear about are the ones that are easily debunked.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're giving science far too much credit as being able to explain every single event in a logical framework where we can definitively say we understand it.


[/ QUOTE ]


Some useful reading material (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-5993553-0599002?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=David+Hume&Go.x=9&Go.y=12)


Scientific Method (http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html)


The above are good starting points for information on how to weigh and sift evidence, think critically, and reach conclusions based on the best available data, or lack thereof. Amoung other useful titbits of information. Enjoy.

-Zeno

[David Sklansky]

"Well, clearly all these other cases have been debunked, therefore it's logical to think that all of them can be debunked" isn't a very useful way of getting at the truth."

Yes it is. If you are a magician watching a man do magic tricks while claiming he has supernatural powers, would it not be logical to think that the few tricks you can't explain are NOT supernatural despite your ignorance of the technique.

[Matt R.]

Zeno,
I am well aware of the scientific method. I have a master's degree in biology and am finishing up a physics degree. You are deluding yourself if you think science, in its current state, can satisfactorily explain every single event that has ever occured in a logical framework. It just can't. Period.

Now, again I am not saying it is impossible that everything can be explained logically, but claiming our current scientific theories are "perfect" and every single unexplainable event can be "debunked" is ludicrous. For one, that way of thinking inhibits new scientific understanding because we start to say things like "Oh, you can explain this event with this theory." Followed by some hand waving that doesn't really explain anything. Scientists are currently studying new things, you know. They don't already have explanations for everything.

Thanks for the links though. I'm sure I'll get around to learning about the scientific method by the time I finish my Ph.D.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Zeno,
I am well aware of the scientific method. I have a master's degree in biology and am finishing up a physics degree. You are deluding yourself if you think science, in its current state, can satisfactorily explain every single event that has ever occured in a logical framework. It just can't. Period.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I did state any of the above in my post. In fact you should read the link.


[ QUOTE ]
For one, that way of thinking inhibits new scientific understanding because we start to say things like "Oh, you can explain this event with this theory." Followed by some hand waving that doesn't really explain anything. Scientists are currently studying new things, you know. They don't already have explanations for everything.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are using theory in a hapazard way, I think you mean conjecture, or at best hypothesis. You cannot hand wave a theory into existence. You need to brush up on the scientific method, in my opinion. The link I posted is fairly accurate in its explanations and makes some excellent points about the limits of science.


[ QUOTE ]
They don't already have explanations for everything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to NotReady or Pairtheboard?

-Zeno

[Matt R.]

David,
Yes, I would think the magician's trick is NOT supernatural in origin. This is because magician's do tricks.

Nature, however, does not do tricks. Nature is nature. If an event occurs where science cannot give a satisfactory explanation, one should not think "science can clearly debunk this event because some others have been debunked".

Let's look at another example. We are studying some physical phenomena. In our studies, we find that we are able to explain 70% of the phenomena classically. This group of phenomena is clearly "easier" to explain, thus we report that we've "debunked" all other explanations. We now have a logical framework to explain stuff. Now, the other 30% is left alone because we could not explain it classically. Is it a good idea to say "well, we've explained all this other stuff classically, therefore it's logical to assume this other 30% can be debunked using classical physics as well." Well, maybe it is, but I don't think so (oops, now we don't have quantum mechanics nor relativity). You create new theories to explain the unexplainable.

There are reported "miracles" of large groups of people having religious visions. Atheists and theists alike, religious and non-religious. Now, you can certainly explain it away scientifically with psychology or maybe some weird physical effect with a little hand-waving thrown in. This is fine. But you've assumed your own conclusion when you say "well, we explained it and therefore it's not really a miracle". Simply measuring something does not preclude it from having some origin outside of empirical observation. Hypothesizing that there IS something outside of empirical observation just means that part of your theory is non-scientific. Essentially you're dismissing any observation as a miracle before you even start, because clearly "we can understand everything... after all, this other stuff has already been debunked."

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, clearly all these other cases have been debunked, therefore it's logical to think that all of them can be debunked" isn't a very useful way of getting at the truth."

Yes it is. If you are a magician watching a man do magic tricks while claiming he has supernatural powers, would it not be logical to think that the few tricks you can't explain are NOT supernatural despite your ignorance of the technique.

[/ QUOTE ]

never seen "the prestige"?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply measuring something does not preclude it from having some origin outside of empirical observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good opportunity to post this for an explanation:

Empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical)

Empirical
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data are data that are produced by experiment or observation.[1] It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically." "Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.

In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles.

In statistics, "empirical" quantities are those computed from observed values, as opposed to those derived from theoretical considerations.

The use of the adjective empirical, especially in scientific studies using statistics, may also indicate that a particular correlation between two parameters has been found, but that so far, no theory for the mechanism of the connection is known.

[Matt R.]

Zeno,
You quoted the part of my post which said "you are giving science far to much credit as being able to explain everything". Followed by a link to the scientific method. It seemed you were implying that my statement indicated I didn't understand the scientific method. If you were agreeing and simply adding to my statement, I apologize.

[ QUOTE ]
You are using theory in a hapazard way, I think you mean conjecture, or at best hypothesis. You cannot hand wave a theory into existence. You need to brush up on the scientific method, in my opinion. The link I posted is fairly accurate in its explanations and makes some excellent points about the limits of science.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying you can take a measurement, do an experiment, whatever, and say "I can explain this data with previous theory", yet not really satisfactorily explain it. I'm not saying you're creating a new theory with hand-waving. It's very easy to take something which we do NOT understand, and try to inadequately explain some "strange" event away with a previously accepted theory and some hand-waving. Yes, this would be hypothesis or conjecture. It often takes time to realize our previous explanations to some phenomena are inadequate, and require new theories. What I'm getting at is that it's a mistake to claim that because we've debunked (explained scientifically) SOME things, that current scientific theory can explain ALL things.

[Zeno]

No apology needed, Matt. A bit of misunderstanding, a misread, or misinterpertation, by one or perhaps by both of us. It is forgotten. Sail on.

-Zeno

[RJT]

Should Wilbur and Orville have relied on all those who tried and failed and come to the conclusion it can‘t be done? Some folk just think they are smarter than others. Geniuses tend to be stubborn (and sometimes pains in the ass).


p.s. All the best in your tourneys.

[PairTheBoard]

Matt makes a good point here on the use of statistical inference, which I think Sklansky misses in his post. In the Houdini example, Houdinin met with mediums at random and Explained how every single one he met was doing it. The statisitical inference is then clear that in the population of mediums of the type he examined it is highly unlikely that a large proportion of them are not bogus. If a large proportion were legitimate the chances of Houdini randomly selecting so many bogus ones in a row would be incredibly small.

As Matt points out, this procedure is different than one that examines phenomenon and explains some of them, leaving others unexplained. And also leaving a multitude unexamined. You have no simple population and no consistent result as in the Houdini case. The statistical inferences are not only different, but with the extent and nature of the unexamined cases so unknown there is little statistical inference that can even be applied to them.

Even in the Houdini example, the statistical inference is not that clear. How large is the population of mediums and how many did he examine? Did he just examine the professional mediums? Is there a large population of quiet mediums who never talk about their experiences? Do professional mediums have an incentive to deceive? Why is it an insult to our intelligence to take a closer look at it? Is it because you have an apriori "Belief" that mediumship doesn't exist, that it's a ridicluous notion, that its "probability" is 1/10^gazillion?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They don't already have explanations for everything.


[/ QUOTE ]
Are you referring to NotReady or Pairtheboard?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have an explanation for everything. For example, I have no explanation for your comment.

PairTheBoard

[andyfox]

"the question now becomes why similar reasoning is not persuasive to those who wonder whether supernatural events attributable to God are sometimes actually legit. When one after another are investigated and debunked, why don't many people realize that it is likely that they all can be debunked."

Because it involves God, and people have more invested in God than they have in mediums. That's why more people believe in angels than in ghosts.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
"the question now becomes why similar reasoning is not persuasive to those who wonder whether supernatural events attributable to God are sometimes actually legit. When one after another are investigated and debunked, why don't many people realize that it is likely that they all can be debunked."

Because it involves God, and people have more invested in God than they have in mediums. That's why more people believe in angels than in ghosts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it arises from people having more invested in God as such. I think it's because there is organised (and powerful) opposition to religion-debunking but not to medium-debunking (mainstream churches were probably cheering both houdini and randi on from the sidelines).

[soon2bepro]

That would be rational, David, but people aren't. They're easier to give up mediums and the like, but religion is much more impregnated into them. They can't just give it up as easily.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Matt makes a good point here on the use of statistical inference, which I think Sklansky misses in his post. In the Houdini example, Houdinin met with mediums at random and Explained how every single one he met was doing it. The statisitical inference is then clear that in the population of mediums of the type he examined it is highly unlikely that a large proportion of them are not bogus. If a large proportion were legitimate the chances of Houdini randomly selecting so many bogus ones in a row would be incredibly small.

As Matt points out, this procedure is different than one that examines phenomenon and explains some of them, leaving others unexplained. And also leaving a multitude unexamined. You have no simple population and no consistent result as in the Houdini case. The statistical inferences are not only different, but with the extent and nature of the unexamined cases so unknown there is little statistical inference that can even be applied to them.

Even in the Houdini example, the statistical inference is not that clear. How large is the population of mediums and how many did he examine? Did he just examine the professional mediums? Is there a large population of quiet mediums who never talk about their experiences? Do professional mediums have an incentive to deceive? Why is it an insult to our intelligence to take a closer look at it? Is it because you have an apriori "Belief" that mediumship doesn't exist, that it's a ridicluous notion, that its "probability" is 1/10^gazillion?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

No supernatural event has ever been proven to have occurred. With the possible exception of the big bang or the infusion of consciousness into humans. While quintillions of natural events have occurred. Thus it is fair to assumme that all mediums are lying once a few have been debunked.

It is important to understand that my definition of a supernatural event is NOT something that our science cannot explain. Rather it is an event that is preposterous to think that any science we will ever discover could easily explain. Thus mental telepathy, as an example, does not qualify.

But God can supposedly cause supernatural events. Such as stopping the rotation of the earth at his whim. Or answering prayers that ask him to disobey all known laws or future scientific laws. You keep incorrectly stating that I propose that the existence of God is unlikely. Or that the explanation for an event that could occur due to natural means is unlikely to be God. Neither is what I am saying. My arguments cannot refute those who say that God uses natural means within the laws of present or future science to accomplish his goals. My arguments simply say that all events have had natural explanations even if present day science hasn't yet discovered them. Including the theoretically possible explanation that God accomplishes his will without breaking scientific or statistical laws. But that means that anyone who thinks God ever has or ever will go beyond that, which means most religious people, are believing something that is ridiculous, as far as the evidence is concerned.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Should Wilbur and Orville have relied on all those who tried and failed and come to the conclusion it can‘t be done? Some folk just think they are smarter than others. Geniuses tend to be stubborn (and sometimes pains in the ass).


p.s. All the best in your tourneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guarantee that no genius of the order of a Nobel Prize winning physicists ever came to the conclusion that it definitely couldn't be done. Its very frustrating that you and others don't distinguish between the merely smart and the brilliant people who do advanced physics.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should Wilbur and Orville have relied on all those who tried and failed and come to the conclusion it can‘t be done? Some folk just think they are smarter than others. Geniuses tend to be stubborn (and sometimes pains in the ass).


p.s. All the best in your tourneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guarantee that no genius of the order of a Nobel Prize winning physicists ever came to the conclusion that it definitely couldn't be done. Its very frustrating that you and others don't distinguish between the merely smart and the brilliant people who do advanced physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is my point. W & O didn’t conclude that since one after another failed to fly (others were debunked) it is likely that flying can be debunked.

[Alex-db]

Nobody would, we see birds fly all the time.

Noone has ever validly demonstrated skills as a medium. We have no reason to believe those skills exists at all, so flight is an invalid analogy.

We have no reason to believe any religious cliams, so religion is analogous to the medium example.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
But God can supposedly cause supernatural events.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to define a "supernatural event" in terms of what it would look like from our perspective. Because I think a good definition would be an event that is either extraordinarily unlikely to occur on its own or an event unexplainable by current scientific theory that appears to have spiritual underpinnings. What else could a miracle possibly "look like" from our point of view?

What I'm sure you noticed about my definition of a miracle is that something which is extremely unlikely to occur does not automatically mean God did it. Also, something which is unexplainable by science does not mean God did it. Looks like a pretty useless definition for a miracle, doesn't it?

Well yeah, that's kind of the point. We cannot "know" if something is a miracle or not scientifically. I think this is an extremely important thing to consider. We simply observe and deduce. There is no way we can come up with a definition of "miracle" where we could prove, or show strong scientific evidence, that an event is a miracle.

To see this, consider your examples. (1) God stops the Earth's rotation at a whim. OK, whether God did it or not, what we observe is simply the Earth ceasing to rotate. Things stop rotating all the time. Why would it be preposterous to assume that science could explain the Earth ceasing to rotate? If it was something extraordinarily weird, like the earth ceasing to rotate for 10 seconds then starting again, I'm not even sure we would feel the effects. If we did, I would think it could be explained as perhaps some weird phenomena occurring at the Earth's core, perhaps some type of earthquake, perhaps our planet hit some "weird" ripple in spacetime as our galaxy moved through the cosmos. Who knows? The bottom line is, I seriously doubt if the Earth stopped rotating briefly the first reaction would be "science could never explain such an effect." Heck, science predicts that, one day, the Earth will stop rotating anyway.

Or (2) what about your example where God answers a prayer asking him to disobey all known scientific laws? What I am wondering is, why would God do such a thing even if he could? Do you mean like a miraculous, extraordinarily unlikely, healing of someone who is sick and dying? People report this stuff all the time, even though you reject it as a misdiagnosis or some natural healing phenomena that science "will eventually explain". Or what about large groups of people (religious and non-religious alike) simultaneously having inexplicable religious-like "visions"? There are documented cases of this. Are these explainable by science? Yes, I think in a vague way, sure. We can explain it away with psychology and some sort of mass delusion.

Do you see what I'm getting at? It is impossible for an event to occur where we can definitely say "it is preposterous that science will ever come up with a natural explanation for this". Whether "God did it" or not, we observe the same thing. We cannot distinguish the two.

Like I said earlier, when you automatically dismiss something as a non-miracle because "well, science will eventually debunk it", you've already assumed your own conclusion. You "know" that there is a scientific explanation for it, and because there is a scientific explanation for it that means God did not do it. The second statement is false. Even if there IS a scientific explanation for it, God could still have done it. We would not be able to tell the difference. It is interesting to note that many world religions state that a certain amount of faith is required. Is it now obvious why that is?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I am reminded of a post awhile back regarding reincarnation. One of the more highly regarded "skeptics" around (I think it was Sagan?) essentially said that he could think of no explanation for many cases of reincarnation that he studied. And, that it was worthy of further investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt, what is this referring to?

[Matt R.]

It was a thread in SMP not too long ago. Hang on a sec and I'll dig it up.

Edit -- link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9880045&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

Sagan and his studies of reincarnation start to get brought up around page 2 or 3 (10 posts per page). There may have been another thread as well that I'm overlooking, but most of what I was thinking of regarding Sagan is in there.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody would, we see birds fly all the time.

Noone has ever validly demonstrated skills as a medium. We have no reason to believe those skills exists at all, so flight is an invalid analogy.

We have no reason to believe any religious cliams, so religion is analogous to the medium example.

[/ QUOTE ]


Animals other than humans have no reason to believe that the skill to think on our level exists. (Animals don’t have reason to figure this all out I know, but you get the idea.) Yet human intelligence exists – other animals aren’t aware of this, of course.

I didn’t say we have reason to believe that extra sensory type of skills are achievable. I simply said because previous ones were frauds is not grounds for a definitive no. (Nor did David, he just said the odds are against it.) I think my analogy holds.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It is important to understand that my definition of a supernatural event is NOT something that our science cannot explain. Rather it is an event that is preposterous to think that any science we will ever discover could easily explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at what a vague notion that is David. How could you possibly know what is preposterous to think science will ever be able to explain? Then you fuzzy up the notion even further with the qualifier, easily. A notion this vague is more akin to a religious belief than a foundation for logical arguments.


Not only is it impossible to determine what is preposterous to think science will ever be able to explain. It is impossible to determine what science will ever even be able to Observe.

What's funny is our views are not too far apart as far as your conclusions go. That's probably why you think I'm being needlessly argumentative. The thing is, it makes a big difference how you arrive at the conclusions. My view is that Strange Events provide no scientific implications regarding God. Religious people who insist on the occurence of Events that do not conform to the laws of physics as we now know them, are doing so needlessly. The reality of the Spritual requires no such Events. If religious people want to believe that God works in ways beyond the reach of science, that's fine. Just be honest though, and admit that is a Religious belief and not one to be imposed on secular studies.

PairTheBoard

[West]

Thanks Matt. I had read about the Stevenson stuff before, but hadn't heard Carl Sagan commenting about it. I didn't realize that was what you were referring to. I didn't realize that Stevenson had passed away. When I first read about his stuff, the idea went through my mind of possibly trying to meet him (him being in the DC area like I am), curious to see how lucid he would seem. Of course I never followed through on the idea.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody would, we see birds fly all the time.

Noone has ever validly demonstrated skills as a medium. We have no reason to believe those skills exists at all, so flight is an invalid analogy.

We have no reason to believe any religious cliams, so religion is analogous to the medium example.

[/ QUOTE ]


Animals other than humans have no reason to believe that the skill to think on our level exists. (Animals don’t have reason to figure this all out I know, but you get the idea.) Yet human intelligence exists – other animals aren’t aware of this, of course.

I didn’t say we have reason to believe that extra sensory type of skills are achievable. I simply said because previous ones were frauds is not grounds for a definitive no. (Nor did David, he just said the odds are against it.) I think my analogy holds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, other animals might have no reason to think that human-level intelligence exists, because they cannot observe it. But we CAN observe birds flying, so your analogy does fall apart. The reason W&O refused to accept the repeated failures was because only one thing was absolutely certain: flight is possible.

[David Sklansky]

Here is another way to try to explain it. Suppose we come upon two previously undiscovered tribes in Africa. Both with a population of 10,000. Tribe A claims that they have 50 members over 130 years old. Tribe B claims that they have 50 members who can tell you what numbers you are about to roll on a dice. We examine five members from each tribe and find them to be frauds. Not surprising since there has never been a human with either attribute. But since these are new tribes, we do go to the trouble to check a few.

But after these spot checks we still have some small reason to hope that some of Tribe A will be 130. Because it wouldn't defy the laws of physics. But we are basically certain that the remaining 45 claimants of tribe B will be frauds because their claims both defy physics and previous evidence.

[BluffTHIS!]

David,

You are forgetting that the quantum singularity that caused the Big Bang, and whose uncreated cause must have been outside time and the universe, itself thus defies physics. So there is a precedent.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is another way to try to explain it. Suppose we come upon two previously undiscovered tribes in Africa. Both with a population of 10,000. Tribe A claims that they have 50 members over 130 years old. Tribe B claims that they have 50 members who can tell you what numbers you are about to roll on a dice. We examine five members from each tribe and find them to be frauds. Not surprising since there has never been a human with either attribute. But since these are new tribes, we do go to the trouble to check a few.

But after these spot checks we still have some small reason to hope that some of Tribe A will be 130. Because it wouldn't defy the laws of physics. But we are basically certain that the remaining 45 claimants of tribe B will be frauds because their claims both defy physics and previous evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had the apriori belief that nobody can predict your dice rolls. Hearing Tribe B's claim did not affect that belief. Testing the claim did not affect that belief.

You had the apriori belief that people conceivably could live to be 130. Hearing Tribe A's claim did not affect that belief. Testing the claim also did not affect that belief.

A religious person has the apriori belief that "Miracles" can happen. Your observation that certain Events can be explained by science does not affect that belief.

Why is this a mystery to you?

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

It isn't an "apriori belief". It is a belief based on logical analysis of the subject matter.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't an "apriori belief". It is a belief based on logical analysis of the subject matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, it's a belief you held prior to meeting the Tribe. The same is true of the Religious Belief in the possibility of Miracles. The Religious person has that belief prior to the discovery of a scientific explanation for some Event. The discovery does not affect that belief anymore than the Claim of Tribe B affected your Belief about predicting dice rolls.

PairTheBoard

[yNnOs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't an "apriori belief". It is a belief based on logical analysis of the subject matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, it's a belief you held prior to meeting the Tribe. The same is true of the Religious Belief in the possibility of Miracles. The Religious person has that belief prior to the discovery of a scientific explanation for some Event. The discovery does not affect that belief anymore than the Claim of Tribe B affected your Belief about predicting dice rolls.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

But its not a belief he held prior to experience. a priori is knowledge acquired without experience. Clearly, logical analysis can qualify as experience.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't an "apriori belief". It is a belief based on logical analysis of the subject matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, it's a belief you held prior to meeting the Tribe. The same is true of the Religious Belief in the possibility of Miracles. The Religious person has that belief prior to the discovery of a scientific explanation for some Event. The discovery does not affect that belief anymore than the Claim of Tribe B affected your Belief about predicting dice rolls.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

But its not a belief he held prior to experience. a priori is knowledge acquired without experience. Clearly, logical analysis can qualify as experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another part of the point is that the Belief in Miracles is a Religious Belief. Once you start talking about that belief you are no longer talking science. You are talking Religion.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

You are forgetting that the quantum singularity that caused the Big Bang, and whose uncreated cause must have been outside time and the universe, itself thus defies physics. So there is a precedent.

[/ QUOTE ]


First off many would argue that the big bang conformed to laws of physics for a higher dimensional universe. Not merely the whim of an omnipotent entity.

But even if that omnipotent entity exists, the overwhelming evidence is that it has never again used its powers to do anything else outside THE laws of physics (not just the ones we discovered.)

Sometimes people forget that I have never said that a personal God or religions that think he does supernatural miracles aren't true. My only point has always been that the information available to us, including the bible, would lead objective expert evidence evaluators to proclaim them big underdogs.

[yNnOs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

You are forgetting that the quantum singularity that caused the Big Bang, and whose uncreated cause must have been outside time and the universe, itself thus defies physics. So there is a precedent.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off many would argue that the big bang conformed to laws of physics for a higher dimensional universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I too have heard arguments for a higher dimensional universe, where to a distant observer, our universe would appear to be on a plane. Also, I think assuming that space and time are finite can be a mistake. What you call physics is a collection of knowledge used as a frame of reference to reality. That which is inconsistent with these models may defy physics, but we'd be foolish to say it defies reality. We simply need a more consistent model.

[David Sklansky]

I am talking about making a line based on both statistical evidence and logical analysis. If someone noticed that the Yankees won 60% of their games this decade after Boston wins an extra inning game you would be less sceptical of this betting angle than if it was after the high temperature of the day was a prime number.

It is a poker problem. And religious people who think their "reads" are logical are live ones.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
But even if that omnipotent entity exists, the overwhelming evidence is that it has never again used its powers to do anything else outside THE laws of physics (not just the ones we discovered.)


[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what "THE laws of physics (not just the ones we discovered)" might possibly be, or even if there is such a thing. So to claim lack of evidence of anything that might contradict them is nonsense. There's no way of knowing what that ill defined "evidence" would even look like.

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes people forget that I have never said that a personal God or religions that think he does supernatural miracles aren't true. My only point has always been that the information available to us, including the bible, would lead objective expert evidence evaluators to proclaim them big underdogs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Experts on objective evidence, also known as scientists, would make no such claim at all. They would recognize that as a Religious Proposition and therefore outside of their field of study.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

You are totally confused. Almost all scientists would claim that there is no evidence that any event has ever occurred on this earth that isn't part of present or future scientific laws. In other words something like the sun stopping on the whim of an omnipotent entity.

If religious beliefs were merely that something like this might IN THE FUTURE happen, scientists would probably not try to argue with them. But they believe that things like that HAVE happened. (Again I mean things that are obviously outside of mathmatically based logical physical systems but are instead one time events that almost couldn't conform to simple laws.) And scientists have no problem expressing their near certainty that that is hogwash.

[yNnOs]

Agreed. How can the analysis of claims purported as truth, be outside of their field of study? The validity of knowledge is the foundation for all science, and therefore such analysis is apart of any scientist's field. Whether they can prove its false is another issue. However, they can firmly grasp its unlikelihood using their own frames of reference. Models that have been shown to be quite consistent with what they (and many others) have observed.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
You are totally confused

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you reduced yourself to this David?



[ QUOTE ]
Almost all scientists would claim that there is no evidence that any event has ever occurred on this earth that isn't part of present or future scientific laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good scientist would not talk that way. He would say, This is the Evidence we have and these are the scientific principles we've developed to explain it. He would make no claims about what future laws of physics might be discovered except to say that they would not contradict the Evidence we already have. He would also make no claims about what future Evidence we might encounter or whether Future laws of physics will even be able to explain it. He would make no statements about God. He would then go back to his business of examining the Evidence he does have, seeking to expand it, and seeking to improve his scientific models for explaining it.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words something like the sun stopping on the whim of an omnipotent entity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're at least getting specific. The scientist would say nothing about the omnipotent entity. He would recognize that as a Religious proposition and not in his field of study. However, he would say that he has no evidence that the Sun ever suddenly stopped moving across the sky, ie. that the Earth suddenly stopped rotating.

He would also point out what the known laws of physics predict would happen in that Event if they applied. And he would probably state that Science works on the assumption that those laws of physics have applied in the past and will do so in the future on a continuous basis. He would also point out that based on this assumption science has been very reliable in making accurate predictions about Events.

He would therefore have no scientific reason to even consider a conjecture that the Earth somehow in the recent past stopped rotating on its axis in such a way that the known laws of physics did not apply. If a Religious person made such an assertion the scientist would just consider it another Religious Proposition and none of his business as a scientist. Simply put, he has no evidence for it and his laws of physics would not predict it.

[ QUOTE ]
If religious beliefs were merely that something like this might IN THE FUTURE happen, scientists would probably not try to argue with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientists don't argue about religious beliefs unless those beliefs are being imposed upon them as science.

[ QUOTE ]
But they believe that things like that HAVE happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't bother the scientist unless the Religious person tries to impose the Religious Belief on him as science.

[ QUOTE ]
And scientists have no problem expressing their near certainty that that is hogwash.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Religious Belief is being imposed on the scientist as Science, the scientist will have no problem saying that it is not science. But as a Religious Belief he has no say as a scientist. He may step out of his role as a scientist and counter with his own Religious Beliefs. But he then recognizes he is on different ground.



PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

PTB,

I think David and others are trying to say that given all that we know, some beliefs are very unreasonable. They are trying to say that there is no good reason for believing these things other than unreliable hearsay.

Also, you say that the scientist can't comment on such "religious beliefs", but as soon as any believer claims that such an event has happened he is encroaching on science. It is the business of the scientist because the spreading of this belief is undermining the belief in scientific truth.

[andyfox]

If when I awake tomorrow morning, the streets are all wet, I will assume that it has rained. Without any proof. It's a logical conclusion to make. If somebody claims they used a water can the size of Los Angeles and made the streets wet by floating up into the clouds and then releasing the water, I have no proof that it is not so, but it's surely an underdog to my rain theory. And it doesn't matter whether I consider the water can explanation religion.

[Zeno]

The debate has come into focus on something that is contentious even amoung the scientific community. The two lighting rods of this debate are now deceased, Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan [Richard Dawkins now takes up Sagan's banner]. Stephen Jay Gould used the term "nonoverlapping magisteria" (NOMA) to separate science from religion and put the two boxers into different rings, more or less. Here is a very interesting essay by Stephen Gould on this very subject and on his own debate with other scientists that disagreed with his view.

Gould on Nonoverlapping Magestria (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html)

Below is a long except from the above linked essay explaning Gould's position.


Just as religion must bear the cross of its hard-liners. I have some scientific colleagues, including a few prominent enough to wield influence by their writings, who view this rapprochement of the separate magisteria with dismay. To colleagues like me—agnostic scientists who welcome and celebrate thc rapprochement, especially the pope's latest statement—they say: "C'mon, be honest; you know that religion is addle-pated, superstitious, old-fashioned b.s.; you're only making those welcoming noises because religion is so powerful, and we need to be diplomatic in order to assure public support and funding for science." I do not think that this attitude is common among scientists, but such a position fills me with dismay—and I therefore end this essay with a personal statement about religion, as a testimony to what I regard as a virtual consensus among thoughtful scientists (who support the NOMA principle as firmly as the pope does).


I am not, personally, a believer or a religious man in any sense of institutional commitment or practice. But I have enormous respect for religion, and the subject has always fascinated me, beyond almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution, paleontology, and baseball). Much of this fascination lies in the historical paradox that throughout Western history organized religion has fostered both the most unspeakable horrors and the most heart-rending examples of human goodness in the face of personal danger. (The evil, I believe, lies in the occasional confluence of religion with secular power. The Catholic Church has sponsored its share of horrors, from Inquisitions to liquidations—but only because this institution held such secular power during so much of Western history. When my folks held similar power more briefly in Old Testament times, they committed just as many atrocities with many of the same rationales.)


I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving concordat between our magisteria—the NOMA solution. NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectua] grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance. NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. This mutual humility has important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions.


Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology. I may, for example, privately suspect that papal insistence on divine infusion of the soul represents a sop to our fears, a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no privileged position to any creature. But I also know that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain. Moreover, while I cannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, I surely honor the metaphorical value of such a concept both for grounding moral discussion and for expressing what we most value about human potentiality: our decency, care, and all the ethical and intellectual struggles that the evolution of consciousness imposed upon us.


As a moral position (and therefore not as a deduction from my knowledge of nature's factuality), I prefer the "cold bath" theory that nature can be truly "cruel" and "indifferent"—in the utterly inappropriate terms of our ethical discourse—because nature was not constructed as our eventual abode, didn't know we were coming (we are, after all, interlopers of the latest geological microsecond), and doesn't give a damn about us (speaking metaphorically). I regard such a position as liberating, not depressing, because we then become free to conduct moral discourse—and nothing could be more important—in our own terms, spared from the delusion that we might read moral truth passively from nature's factuality.

__________________________________________________ ____

It would be fair to post something of Sagan's in a rebuttal of the above. Or something by say Richard Dawkins. But I will leave that to others.

As to the statement of PTB in reference to the limits of science in relation to investigation of religious propositions, many accept his point(s). Others, however, do not agree – saying in effect that any claims made by people whether inspired by or defined as religious (or otherwise) can be brought under the preview of science or logical analysis. To not do so is to allow an escape net for any number of charlatans and bamboozlers to work on a credulous public unchecked. And this would include the Charlatans that wear a religious cloak.

-Zeno

[Taraz]

Stephen Jay Gould is great.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
My only point has always been that the information available to us, including the bible, would lead objective expert evidence evaluators to proclaim them big underdogs.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you have also qualified that with the necessary stipulation that they actually have to have studied the matter thoroughly. Which means since you haven't, and presumably can't, show that the top 100 physicists have studied the major religions, christianity in particular for our discussion here, then your assumption about what they would conclude *if* they studied it *thoroughly*, is just that, an assumption without foundation.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only point has always been that the information available to us, including the bible, would lead objective expert evidence evaluators to proclaim them big underdogs.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you have also qualified that with the necessary stipulation that they actually have to have studied the matter thoroughly. Which means since you haven't, and presumably can't, show that the top 100 physicists have studied the major religions, christianity in particular for our discussion here, then your assumption about what they would conclude *if* they studied it *thoroughly*, is just that, an assumption without foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are, of course, plenty of scholars/scientists that have seriously studied religions and Christianity in particular in a scientific, secular, or rational way - from anthropologists to historians of religions.

Just one example amoung many: Journal (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jssr;jsessionid=1u2pefpwunky1.victoria)

or this: JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/journals/00219231.html)

or on the more popular front the books of Elaine Pagels.

-Zeno

[BluffTHIS!]

Zeno,

David has previously specified a more narrow range of scientists, including mainly physicists and mathematicians from prestigious universities, which is what I meant. Most, if not all, of the scholars who study religion that you allude to won't cut the mustard for him.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only point has always been that the information available to us, including the bible, would lead objective expert evidence evaluators to proclaim them big underdogs.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you have also qualified that with the necessary stipulation that they actually have to have studied the matter thoroughly. Which means since you haven't, and presumably can't, show that the top 100 physicists have studied the major religions, christianity in particular for our discussion here, then your assumption about what they would conclude *if* they studied it *thoroughly*, is just that, an assumption without foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather debate that point, let me simply ask you if you yourself somehow believe that if they did study the major religions they would be likely to feel differently.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I think David and others are trying to say that given all that we know, some beliefs are very unreasonable. They are trying to say that there is no good reason for believing these things other than unreliable hearsay.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would not object so strongly if David spoke in those terms. However, I would still point out some things about your phrasing. Certainly there is no scientific reason to believe the Earth ever stood still. But the phrase "other than unreliable hearsay" begins to Mix fields of thought. This is why in previous posts I've tried to isolate this factor out of the picture by hypothesizing a parting of the Red Sea where we have first hand conclusive evidence that it just happened. Notice my conclusions are different than David's for that hypothesis. Bringing in a Biblical account now complicates things.

A science minded scholar would take a look at the "hearsay" evidence, keeping in mind it is a report of something science predicts would not happen. I agree, that fact should make the scholar extremely skeptical of the account. When he further considers the type of stories in the document containing the hearsay evidence, the general context of symbolic, allegorical, and metaphoric language used in the document, the culture of the people who recorded the document, and the oral tradition from which the account came, it should not be hard for him to make the reasonable conclusion that the Event simply did not happen.

So I agree that an overall look at the conjecture by science and scholarship comes to the reasonable conclusion that it did not happen.

But now you come to the Mix that consideration of the Biblical account produces. A religious person might Believe that the Bible is Divinely Revealed Truth. For him, anything is possible and the reasonable conclusions of science don't necessarily apply. I don't see how the scientist can speak to such a position. This Religious person simply does not accept the Scientific Assumption that laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future. Science can point out to him that such a refutation will not allow the Religious person to make accurate scientific predictions of Events. But this Religious person doesn't care about doing that. He cares about accepting what he Believes to be a Divinely Revealed Fact about a physical Event.

It is at this point that the two camps have to simply recognize irreconcilable differences. The scientist has no tools to address this Belief in Divinely Revealed Truth. He has already said what he can say. He does himself no good by calling names. And he demeans his discipline if he starts trying to apply sophmoric psuedo-math and psuedo-probabilty statements to this Religious Belief, like Sklansky does. My objection to Sklansky's approach is more a defense of science than it is of Religion. And I don't particularly enjoy having to make it. Sklansky should know better.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you say that the scientist can't comment on such "religious beliefs", but as soon as any believer claims that such an event has happened he is encroaching on science. It is the business of the scientist because the spreading of this belief is undermining the belief in scientific truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said repeatedly that the scientist could, would, and should comment that the Beliefs are not science. When Religious Beliefs purport facts about past physical events science most certainly should comment most vigorously when those purported facts disagree with conclusions of science. I don't see science being much threatened by such Beliefs. The success of scientific methods is apparent and the assumptions of science are held as reasonable by modern thinkers because of this success. What more would you have science say to such archaic Religious views? Do you think they improve the situation by calling people names? Certainly science needs to defend itself in secular schools. The last thing we need is to muddle up the scientific process by imposing Religious views on scientific theory.

But when science goes on the attack into Religion it looses its scientific footing. It can point out that archaic religious beliefs about physical events do not work toward the goal of making accurate predictions about physical events. But when science talks about the nature of the perspective from which those Beliefs arose all it can say is that it's not a scientific perspective. It has no scientific grounds to condemn the perspective itself because it is a perspective with entirely different motivations and goals than science. It would be similiar to science condemning Art because Art is not science. At least Art that knows what Art is about and doesn't try to insist that Art be taught in the science classroom.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

But you are saying that science doesn't have the right to say that certain religious beliefs are not likely to be true. That is just wrong.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
But you are saying that science doesn't have the right to say that certain religious beliefs are not likely to be true. That is just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how you are using the term "likely" and at what level you are applying it. Science can say that under its Assumption that the known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future, based on those known laws not only is it highly unlikely that the Earth Stood Still, but it is virually impossible. But now, what can Science say about that assumption? Can it say it is highly unlikely the assumption is untrue? Well, science can say the Assumption has proved very reliable for predicting events. It can conclude it is therefore a reasonable working Assumption.

Loosely speaking science might then say it is "unlikely" to be untrue based on its successful predictive record. But science would not conclude that there is, Strictly Speaking, a "low probability" of the Assumption being untrue. A good scientist would know better than to say that because he knows he has no mathematical probability model on which to base such a statement, Strictly Speaking.

Neither would he make such psuedo-mathematical statements about the probability of yet to be discovered laws of physics that might account for such an anomaly. Much less does he have any mathematical probability model to compute likelihoods for Religious propositions about some kind of God that might be involved.

Maybe you should discuss this with some of those brilliant physicists and mathematicians you know David. They will tell you the same thing.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

You are making a very technical argument about what probability can talk about. But even if you are right, it is irrelevant. Because the religious people I criticize are using probability the same way I, and most people do. And they claim that the overall evidence is consistent with a god who not only could, but HAS stopped the sun. In other words they are saying it is the scientist or the statistician who isn't thinking straight.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
using probability the same way I, and most people do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You of all people should know better than to do that.


[ QUOTE ]
they claim that the overall evidence is consistent with a god who not only could, but HAS stopped the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]

What "evidence" is that? Someone has told them it's Divine Revelation and they believe it? Are you sure they then talk about "probabilities" based on that evidence? Or do they talk about Faith through Grace? I think you've been sloppy with your statements of probability so long you can't think straight about it anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words they are saying it is the scientist or the statistician who isn't thinking straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they claim the scientist isn't thinking straight. They claim he lacks Faith in what they believe is Divine Revelation. And they didn't come to that Faith by thinking about probabilities. They came to it by Grace. Or so they say.

You are getting as bad as NotReady in misrepresenting things.

PairTheBoard

[yNnOs]

Science has the right to say that certain religious beliefs aren't consistent with any empirical models to a scientifically acceptable degree. Using science, we have a "frame of reference" to reality that is the most consistent (than any other approach) with what has been observed.

We assume the observed is a fair representation of reality; which it isn't always of course. Measurements are never truly exact, and every variable may not be accounted for. But with many religious beliefs, there is either little or no consistency at all. Such inconsistency as to say, it isn't likely to be true, but not as a statement of absolute fact. Scientific theories are truth sustaining, not truth revealing.

[David Sklansky]

"I don't think they claim the scientist isn't thinking straight. They claim he lacks Faith in what they believe is Divine Revelation. And they didn't come to that Faith by thinking about probabilities. They came to it by Grace. Or so they say."

The people you are describing are not the people I am arguing with. The people I am arguing with are those who for instance become believer's after reading a book like "The Case for Christ". Or those who say things like "the bible's predictions have come true which makes its truth likely".

Do you agree with me that anybody who was put on trial for using supernatural powers to murder somebody should be acquitted no matter how much evidence there was against him (as long as there was no proof he HAD supernatural powers)?

[twonine29]

[ QUOTE ]
One last quick comment before I'm off.

When Houdini went around the country exposing how some mediums were using tricks to make it look like they were communicating with the dead, he pretty much convinced people that ALL mediums were charlatans. Same with the Amazing Randi years later. But both these magicians investigated only a tiny fraction of mediums. So wouldn't it stand to reason that they only showed that MOST mediums were frauds?

Well of course the answer is no and I won't insult the intelligence of people here with an explanation. But the question now becomes why similar reasoning is not persuasive to those who wonder whether supernatural events attributable to God are sometimes actually legit. When one after another are investigated and debunked, why don't many people realize that it is likely that they all can be debunked.

[/ QUOTE ]

where did we come from david?...where did anything come from? if we hit rewind on a tape of the whole existence of the universe...what's at the beginning? what's before the beginning? was there ever nothing? how did anything ever come from nothing?

[yNnOs]

Typical human rationalization... there must be a beginning and end to everything.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't think they claim the scientist isn't thinking straight. They claim he lacks Faith in what they believe is Divine Revelation. And they didn't come to that Faith by thinking about probabilities. They came to it by Grace. Or so they say."

The people you are describing are not the people I am arguing with. The people I am arguing with are those who for instance become believer's after reading a book like "The Case for Christ". Or those who say things like "the bible's predictions have come true which makes its truth likely".


[/ QUOTE ]

If they are speaking loosely when they use the term "likely" that's no reason for you to claim to be using the term "likely" in a strict mathematical sense when you too are speaking loosely with it. I think once you begin to compare the types of predictions they claim and the evidence for it - Trust in their interpretation of Biblical Accounts and the Divine Revelation of the Bible - to the massive evidence of reliable measurable predictions of science, you will see them always fall back to a position of Faith through Grace.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you agree with me that anybody who was put on trial for using supernatural powers to murder somebody should be acquitted no matter how much evidence there was against him (as long as there was no proof he HAD supernatural powers)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the court gave legal status to the crime of murder through supernatural means, how could it convict somebody of that crime if "there was no proof he HAD supernatural powers"? Should a court give legal status to the crime of murder through supernatural means? No. Just like our schools, and science, a court should run on secular legal principles not on religious beliefs about supernatural powers.

If people want to believe in witches with supernatural powers based on Religious Faith and maybe some observations about events that don't pass scientific muster, that's their business. But they should not be allowed to teach their beliefs in our public secular schools. Science should not have to impede its process by the non scientific imposition of such beliefs on science. And the public courts should not consider such beliefs as evidence in a court of law.

However, I might still want to join one of their covens if they have a lot of hot chicks there.

PairTheBoard

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]

You had the apriori belief that nobody can predict your dice rolls.

You had the apriori belief that people conceivably could live to be 130.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither of these beliefs is held a priori, unless you are using 'a priori' in an idiosyncratic way. These are both empirically-based beliefs.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You had the apriori belief that nobody can predict your dice rolls.

You had the apriori belief that people conceivably could live to be 130.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither of these beliefs is held a priori, unless you are using 'a priori' in an idiosyncratic way. These are both empirically-based beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize the standard philisophical usage of the term "apriori". I read a little about it just now. I was thinking of it simply as "from what comes before" where in this case it's before the meeting with the Tribes. In other words, he is not meeting the tribes with a blank slate as far as a belief about dice predicting or length of life. I'll be more careful using the word from now on. I probably should have just said, "prior belief" in this case.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

PTB,

I don't really understand what you are saying in these posts. The scientist is able to claim that some religious beliefs are inconsistent with the observable world. That isn't outside the scope of science.

Are you saying that the believer can say that he believes the universe obeyed different physical laws previously? Obviously everyone has the right to believe what they want. If that is all you're saying, then there really isn't even an argument here. But I don't understand why the scientist can't say that the likelihood that this belief is true is miniscule.

[jason1990]

David is not a scientist. He is a gambler. His use of "probability" seems entirely consistent with its common usage among gamblers, which appears to be only semi-Bayesian. To a gambler, every event has a probability. For example, on Bodog right now, you can bet on whether or not Tobey Maguire will sign on to star in Spiderman 4. What is the "true" probability of this event? A pure Bayesian would say that there is no true probability. A pure Bayesian contends that objective probabilities do not exist. Only subjective probabilities exist, and any set of consistent subjective probabilities is as good as any other. But gamblers are in the business of making money. So clearly, they believe there is a true probability, and they place wagers when they think their estimate of the true probability is better than the estimate of their opponent. One way a gambler might try to determine the true probability of some event is to look to the expert odds-makers and consider what they have to say about it.

So it is a Bayesian perspective in that it is all about subjective beliefs regarding probabilities. But it is non-Bayesian in that it does not deny the existence of objective probabilities. In fact, it positively asserts the existence of an objective probability, and makes finding this probability its ultimate goal. In doing so, it assigns certain people's opinions more weight than others.

Of course, this is not necessarily science. Experts may come to a consensus regarding their opinion of a certain probability (i.e. what they would be willing to wager), but that does not mean their opinion was arrived at through a formal application of the scientific method.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand what you are saying in these posts. The scientist is able to claim that some religious beliefs are inconsistent with the observable world. That isn't outside the scope of science.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I claimed the scientist would say about the belief that the Earth Stood Still.

[ QUOTE ]
Science can say that under its Assumption that the known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future, based on those known laws not only is it highly unlikely that the Earth Stood Still, but it is virually impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you insist the scientist should say, the belief is, "inconsistent with the observable world." Which statement do you think is more precise and accurate?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that the believer can say that he believes the universe obeyed different physical laws previously? Obviously everyone has the right to believe what they want. If that is all you're saying, then there really isn't even an argument here. But I don't understand why the scientist can't say that the likelihood that this belief is true is miniscule.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I claimed the scientist could say,

[ QUOTE ]
Well, science can say the Assumption has proved very reliable for predicting events. It can conclude it is therefore a reasonable working Assumption.

Loosely speaking science might then say it is "unlikely" to be untrue based on its successful predictive record.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Assumption being that known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present and future.

So you object to my observation that the scientist is speaking loosely when he uses the term "unlikely"? Strictly speaking, how could the scientist have any idea for how to form probabilities on the Space of all conceivable modes of existence and reality and universes where the sudden disruption of the kinds of laws of physics we know about happen haphazardly, or due to yet to be discovered laws of physics, or due to some even more ill defined notion of Divine intervention? He can't. He may have an opinion and a strong conviction that this particular universe, the one reality we do know about, does not have such freak anomalies. He may state that opinion by speaking loosely that he thinks it is "unlikely" that our reality is of that type. But do you think you do science a service by dumbing it down or insisting it says things it doesn't?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Only subjective probabilities exist, and any set of consistent subjective probabilities is as good as any other. But gamblers are in the business of making money. So clearly, they believe there is a true probability, and they place wagers when they think their estimate of the true probability is better than the estimate of their opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. And it's hard to argue with the subjective probability estimates of a really good expert gambler like David Sklansky. He has a long record of probability estimates for many different Events which provides statistical evidence for his ability to make accurate Estimates for those kinds of Events.

However, notice that there are a lot of Events of the kind on which Sklansky might estimate probabilites and Gamble on. You can test his abilities with statistics on those Events. But when he applies his powers to the Ultimate One Time Event of the nature of reality, the existence of an impossible to define thing called "God", the possibility this Universe has Freak Anomalies yet to be conclusively observed, etc. there are no multiple Events of this type on which we can statistically test his powers.

His "common usage" of the terms "likely" and "unlikely" becomes just another subjective opinion. The only reasonable translation for what he is saying is that these are his Beliefs and the term "likely" just means that He Personally has a "high degree of conviction" for them.



[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this is not necessarily science. Experts may come to a consensus regarding their opinion of a certain probability (i.e. what they would be willing to wager), but that does not mean their opinion was arrived at through a formal application of the scientific method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. It's not science. And who can be considered an expert on conjectures about the nature of reality that go far beyond the bounds of our current library of objective data?

PairTheBoard

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody would, we see birds fly all the time.

Noone has ever validly demonstrated skills as a medium. We have no reason to believe those skills exists at all, so flight is an invalid analogy.

We have no reason to believe any religious cliams, so religion is analogous to the medium example.

[/ QUOTE ]


Animals other than humans have no reason to believe that the skill to think on our level exists. (Animals don’t have reason to figure this all out I know, but you get the idea.) Yet human intelligence exists – other animals aren’t aware of this, of course.

I didn’t say we have reason to believe that extra sensory type of skills are achievable. I simply said because previous ones were frauds is not grounds for a definitive no. (Nor did David, he just said the odds are against it.) I think my analogy holds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, other animals might have no reason to think that human-level intelligence exists, because they cannot observe it. But we CAN observe birds flying, so your analogy does fall apart. The reason W&O refused to accept the repeated failures was because only one thing was absolutely certain: flight is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cliff notes at end of this post.

My specific analogy might not be an exact analogy, I will concede that. So, I guess by definition my analogy fails. My main point though is to suggest that simply because something has never happened or has not been proven to have happened or has been proven to not have happened does not mean the concept or a like-concept is not possible

Again, this is not to negate the OP’s point which has to do with Bayes Theorem and probability of past/present things being debunked.

So, what I am saying is this: Moses, Abraham, et al were 1) frauds 2) got the signals wrong - misinterpreted either their own experiences or misinterpreted what God was up to 3) got the signals right but failed to communicate to us adequately their witness or 4) got the signals right but we fail to understand what they are telling us or perhaps 5) has nothing to do with the real God so we should start with square one.

My analogy was meant to show that we shouldn’t necessarily look back to figure out how to witness God or to determine if witness is possible. Or if we do look back we need to look at past events with an interpretation that might translate to what we know at this point in time. I think though the real key is to find new ways to witness.

Cliff notes: My point turned out to be an unintentional hijack. Disregard it.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand what you are saying in these posts. The scientist is able to claim that some religious beliefs are inconsistent with the observable world. That isn't outside the scope of science.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I claimed the scientist would say about the belief that the Earth Stood Still.

[ QUOTE ]
Science can say that under its Assumption that the known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future, based on those known laws not only is it highly unlikely that the Earth Stood Still, but it is virually impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you insist the scientist should say, the belief is, "inconsistent with the observable world." Which statement do you think is more precise and accurate?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that the believer can say that he believes the universe obeyed different physical laws previously? Obviously everyone has the right to believe what they want. If that is all you're saying, then there really isn't even an argument here. But I don't understand why the scientist can't say that the likelihood that this belief is true is miniscule.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I claimed the scientist could say,


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still really confused. What can the scientist not say?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand what you are saying in these posts. The scientist is able to claim that some religious beliefs are inconsistent with the observable world. That isn't outside the scope of science.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I claimed the scientist would say about the belief that the Earth Stood Still.

[ QUOTE ]
Science can say that under its Assumption that the known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future, based on those known laws not only is it highly unlikely that the Earth Stood Still, but it is virually impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you insist the scientist should say, the belief is, "inconsistent with the observable world." Which statement do you think is more precise and accurate?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that the believer can say that he believes the universe obeyed different physical laws previously? Obviously everyone has the right to believe what they want. If that is all you're saying, then there really isn't even an argument here. But I don't understand why the scientist can't say that the likelihood that this belief is true is miniscule.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I claimed the scientist could say,


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still really confused. What can the scientist not say?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Strictly speaking, how could the scientist have any idea for how to form probabilities on the Space of all conceivable modes of existence and reality and universes where the sudden disruption of the kinds of laws of physics we know about happen haphazardly, or due to yet to be discovered laws of physics, or due to some even more ill defined notion of Divine intervention? He can't

[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore, For the Assumpton that known laws of physics apply continuously in the Past, Present, and Future,

[ QUOTE ]
But science would not conclude that there is, Strictly Speaking, a "low probability" of the Assumption being untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

And for the Anomaly of the Earth having Stood Still according to supposed Biblical Accounts,

[ QUOTE ]
Neither would he make such psuedo-mathematical statements about the probability of yet to be discovered laws of physics that might account for such an anomaly.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
Much less does he have any mathematical probability model to compute likelihoods for Religious propositions about some kind of God that might be involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, since he has no way of making strict probability statements about the possibility of things that could cause the Anomaly of the Earth Standing Still, and he has no objective evidence one way or the other that it did or did not happen, he cannot make a strict probability statement about whether or not the Earth Stood Still as some Biblicists claim.

I realize this is a difficult position for me to defend. I realize it appears absurd to a lot of people. You want to say, cmon, let's cut the bs. Isn't the scientist obviously going to simply say in every day language that this Freak contention that the Earth Stood Still just plainly "probably" didn't happen?

But consider this. As hard as it is to conceive, there actually are Religious people who believe this. Here's the thing. There's no reason that scientist can't be one of them. That scientist could have the Religious Belief that it happened. And he would continue to say all the things I claimed a scientist should say about the purported Anomaly. But as a scientist he wouldn't be constrained by the psuedo-math, psuedo-probability statements because they simply don't apply. The one statement I said a scientist "might" make speaking loosely, that the Event is "unlikely" is not a statement he would Have to make. That's because it is a subjective opinion. With his Religious Belief his subjective opinion is that it is, loosely speaking, "likely" the Event happened. In fact, he has a very strong conviction that it did.

Just because this is a difficult position for me to defend doesn't mean it's not correct. Take a look at my response to Jason1990's post if you are still confused.

PairTheBoard

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only point has always been that the information available to us, including the bible, would lead objective expert evidence evaluators to proclaim them big underdogs.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you have also qualified that with the necessary stipulation that they actually have to have studied the matter thoroughly. Which means since you haven't, and presumably can't, show that the top 100 physicists have studied the major religions, christianity in particular for our discussion here, then your assumption about what they would conclude *if* they studied it *thoroughly*, is just that, an assumption without foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather debate that point, let me simply ask you if you yourself somehow believe that if they did study the major religions they would be likely to feel differently.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not a majority, but a statistically significant minority. Assuming they approached it without bias as a scientist should any inquiry.

Let me note again, that despite my more "lenient" theological views on who can be saved compared to the fundamentalists here, I still don't necessariy think a majority of the human race will be saved (which has more to do with golden rule stuff in sins of ommission with the less fortunate). So it wouldn't be surprising to me that believers or converts in a given group were a distinct minority of the total of that group.