|
|
#51
10-04-2007, 03:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think that people who form beliefs based on faith only have a problem if the two conflict. [/ QUOTE ] Is that the position they refer to as FOG ( faith of the gaps) ? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Any chance of more words? I'm not suggesting that, in the absence of evidence it is a good idea to jump in and "discover" a faith-based belief. I am suggesting that if someone consulted the stars and formed a whole host of beliefs, then ran a bunch of experiments which confirmed those beliefs then they dont have a problem they need to address. If the two methods disagree, then they need to form a view on which is more reliable (or maintain an inconsistent position) [/ QUOTE ] For starters - You're playing fast and loose with phrases such as "confirmed those beliefs". If granny counts the wrinkles on her nose to determine lotto numbers and the numbers come up, that doesn't "confirm her belief". there's more, but I'll wait for clarification of this aspect, luckyme [/ QUOTE ] We never get far before hitting the problem of what a belief is, but I think she has confirmed one of her beliefs. I think she has several amongst them: 1) I believe can determine lotto numbers by counting the wrinkles on my nose 2) I believe the numbers which will come up are xyz When the numbers xyz come up, her second belief is confirmed as true but not the first. (I dont think she can claim the second as knowledge, it was nonetheless a true belief which has now been confirmed via experimental evidence). 
|
|
#52
10-04-2007, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think that people who form beliefs based on faith only have a problem if the two conflict. [/ QUOTE ] Is that the position they refer to as FOG ( faith of the gaps) ? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Any chance of more words? I'm not suggesting that, in the absence of evidence it is a good idea to jump in and "discover" a faith-based belief. I am suggesting that if someone consulted the stars and formed a whole host of beliefs, then ran a bunch of experiments which confirmed those beliefs then they dont have a problem they need to address. If the two methods disagree, then they need to form a view on which is more reliable (or maintain an inconsistent position) [/ QUOTE ] For starters - You're playing fast and loose with phrases such as "confirmed those beliefs". If granny counts the wrinkles on her nose to determine lotto numbers and the numbers come up, that doesn't "confirm her belief". there's more, but I'll wait for clarification of this aspect, luckyme [/ QUOTE ] We never get far before hitting the problem of what a belief is, but I think she has confirmed one of her beliefs. I think she has several amongst them: 1) I believe can determine lotto numbers by counting the wrinkles on my nose 2) I believe the numbers which will come up are xyz When the numbers xyz come up, her second belief is confirmed as true but not the first. (I dont think she can claim the second as knowledge, it was nonetheless a true belief which has now been confirmed via experimental evidence). [/ QUOTE ] Sure we run across a problem because my example certainly started out as one belief "I can predict lottery tickets by the nature of my nose wrinkles". You then want to talk about "beliefs being confirmed" when what you have done is morphed granny's belief into " sometimes people pick the correct lottery numbers" .. who would argue with that!? What happened to granny's belief? luckyme
|
|
#53
10-04-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think that people who form beliefs based on faith only have a problem if the two conflict. [/ QUOTE ] Is that the position they refer to as FOG ( faith of the gaps) ? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Any chance of more words? I'm not suggesting that, in the absence of evidence it is a good idea to jump in and "discover" a faith-based belief. I am suggesting that if someone consulted the stars and formed a whole host of beliefs, then ran a bunch of experiments which confirmed those beliefs then they dont have a problem they need to address. If the two methods disagree, then they need to form a view on which is more reliable (or maintain an inconsistent position) [/ QUOTE ] For starters - You're playing fast and loose with phrases such as "confirmed those beliefs". If granny counts the wrinkles on her nose to determine lotto numbers and the numbers come up, that doesn't "confirm her belief". there's more, but I'll wait for clarification of this aspect, luckyme [/ QUOTE ] We never get far before hitting the problem of what a belief is, but I think she has confirmed one of her beliefs. I think she has several amongst them: 1) I believe can determine lotto numbers by counting the wrinkles on my nose 2) I believe the numbers which will come up are xyz When the numbers xyz come up, her second belief is confirmed as true but not the first. (I dont think she can claim the second as knowledge, it was nonetheless a true belief which has now been confirmed via experimental evidence). [/ QUOTE ] Sure we run across a problem because my example certainly started out as one belief "I can predict lottery tickets by the nature of my nose wrinkles". You then want to talk about "beliefs being confirmed" when what you have done is morphed granny's belief into " sometimes people pick the correct lottery numbers" .. who would argue with that!? What happened to granny's belief? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] I dont think you read what I wrote. I dont think the belief "I can predict lottery tickets by the nature of my nose wrinkles" has been confirmed at all. I think the additional belief "The lottery numbers will be ...xyz." has been confirmed. Going back to the original sentence of mine you quoted. If granny sails through life making a whole bunch of correct predictions through some ludicrous method - she doesnt have a problem to explain. All of her beliefs as to what will happen have been confirmed. My point was it is only a problem if she follows her method and it predicts something not confirmed by the evidence. Then she has a problem.
|
|
#55
10-04-2007, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think you read what I wrote. I dont think the belief "I can predict lottery tickets by the nature of my nose wrinkles" has been confirmed at all. I think the additional belief "The lottery numbers will be ...xyz." has been confirmed. [/ QUOTE ] So, the guy says to bunny, " I believe an elf will jump out that window, land on the hydrant, spit in the cops eye, he'll turn around quickly and fall against the wall and that will cause the street light to turn green one minute from now. Betcha 5 bucks." Bunny accepts. The light turns green in 1 minute, no elf, cop, etc. The guy says, " see, I was right !" bunny says, "yes, your belief was confirmed, here's the nickel". or ?? luckyme
|
|
#56
10-04-2007, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I dont think you read what I wrote. I dont think the belief "I can predict lottery tickets by the nature of my nose wrinkles" has been confirmed at all. I think the additional belief "The lottery numbers will be ...xyz." has been confirmed. [/ QUOTE ] So, the guy says to bunny, " I believe an elf will jump out that window, land on the hydrant, spit in the cops eye, he'll turn around quickly and fall against the wall and that will cause the street light to turn green one minute from now. Betcha 5 bucks." Bunny accepts. The light turns green in 1 minute, no elf, cop, etc. The guy says, " see, I was right !" bunny says, "yes, your belief was confirmed, here's the nickel". or ?? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Or bunny claims the bet was regarding the whole series of events, not just the last one. The guy has a whole host of beliefs, one has been confirmed a whole bunch havent - I would have thought this would fit well with your conception of beliefs as being an amorphous blob of responses-to-probes rather than a catalog of yes/no propositions. I think your examples are going beyond what I was initially claiming. I dont claim one belief being justified validates all the others. Although, despite being an invalid argument, it is probably useful in a rhetorical sense and perhaps partly explains the "This doctor has published dozens of highly respectable scientific papers and he says...." arguments often put forward by creationists. Returning to my initial point regarding who has a problem and who doesnt - I think the elf-believing traffic light watcher above does have something to explain, since his faith-derived beliefs have not been confirmed by experiment (though one of them has). He has a bigger problem than the theist next to him who claims there's an elf inside pulling levers to change the lights (at least until we open up the mechanism...)
|
|
#57
10-04-2007, 10:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think the belief "I can predict lottery tickets by the nature of my nose wrinkles" has been confirmed at all. [/ QUOTE ] Sure it has. She made a specific prediction on the basis of that hypothesis, and her prediction was accurate. I wouldn't say that meets a scientific standard of evidence, but it's concrete evidence. Of course, her hypothesis will be falsified if the lotto numbers ever fail to correspond with her nose wrinkles, but after 1 trial she's looking good. After 2 trials I'd start betting on the numbers. After 3 trials I'd start looking for an explanation (come to my laboratory, granny...), and after 5 I'd be convinced of the phenomenon.
|
|
#58
10-04-2007, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I dont think the belief "I can predict lottery tickets by the nature of my nose wrinkles" has been confirmed at all. [/ QUOTE ] Sure it has. She made a specific prediction on the basis of that hypothesis, and her prediction was accurate. I wouldn't say that meets a scientific standard of evidence, but it's concrete evidence. Of course, her hypothesis will be falsified if the lotto numbers ever fail to correspond with her nose wrinkles, but after 1 trial she's looking good. After 2 trials I'd start betting on the numbers. After 3 trials I'd start looking for an explanation (come to my laboratory, granny...), and after 5 I'd be convinced of the phenomenon. [/ QUOTE ] I dont think the evidence is related to the method she uses. Clearly there's evidence that she can predict the numbers. I dont think there's any additional evidence (other than her testimony) that it's her nose wrinkles which let her do it.
|
|
#59
10-04-2007, 11:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox
Okay, my bad. I just assumed her honesty.
Still, the likelihood that her nose wrinkles can predict the numbers is much greater, her having predicted the numbers successfully (by an unknown method). If you could duplicate her results independently (by applying her nose-reading system yourself) that would confirm them.
|
|
#60
10-04-2007, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I dont think the belief "I can predict lottery tickets by the nature of my nose wrinkles" has been confirmed at all. [/ QUOTE ] Sure it has. She made a specific prediction on the basis of that hypothesis, and her prediction was accurate. I wouldn't say that meets a scientific standard of evidence, but it's concrete evidence. Of course, her hypothesis will be falsified if the lotto numbers ever fail to correspond with her nose wrinkles, but after 1 trial she's looking good. After 2 trials I'd start betting on the numbers. After 3 trials I'd start looking for an explanation (come to my laboratory, granny...), and after 5 I'd be convinced of the phenomenon. [/ QUOTE ] I've never grasped the convincing power of lucky red shirts. luckyme
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
