Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

The whole "law" vs "theory" thing is a pretty irrelevant argument, since we pretty much stopped calling things "laws" in the early 1900s and stuck to "theories." They both mean essentially the same thing, but "theory" doesn't have the air of hubris that "law" does.

We've broken Newton's "laws" but they're still called laws. Laws are artifacts from the Enlightenment era, where we thought we could describe the universe in a simple set of hard rules. Same reason elements are called "elements" despite being far from elemental.

So yeah. Irrelevant distinction. They're both rulesets we use to describe the universe.

[Leafsnail]

You say the universe acts "consistently." I suppose that's true. But it's also true of any simulation we make ourselves; Mario going into the minus world may be a glitch, but it can be experimentally shown as consistently happening every time with the correct input.

Fenrir already addressed the "ooh maybe we're in a computer!" possibility: it doesn't matter.  In the slightest.  My reality is my reality even if it's in a computer or someone's imagination.  There would be a problem if the laws were inconsistent, but the way to approach that is to assume the laws are consistent and modify that view if it turns out they aren't (eg: if gravity suddenly reverses direction I will revise my belief).

You seem to be positing that the universe might be very, very slightly inconsistent (quantum events may occasionally go the wrong way!) but I put it to you that if the universe is very very slightly inconsistent, to the extent that we can't even measure it, then it doesn't matter at all.  It might as well be consistent for our purposes.

Back to our situation, empiricism and <insert religion here> are both built upon... well nothing actually, except "because I wanna believe it."

Fenrir spent a good while explaining the difference and you respond like this?  I'll state the difference one more time.

An axiom that is clearly required in order to get anywhere, that can immediately be revised if it turns out to be untrue (possibilities: if gravity reverses, or conservation of momentum suddenly stops applying, or energy starts being created out of nowhere, or the speed of light in a vacuum changes).

vs

An axiom that has no clear basis and no possible method of falsification plus the previous axiom.

Can you really see no way in which you could attack one position but not the other once you remove your oversimplification?

[kaijyuu]

You say the universe acts "consistently." I suppose that's true. But it's also true of any simulation we make ourselves; Mario going into the minus world may be a glitch, but it can be experimentally shown as consistently happening every time with the correct input.

Fenrir already addressed the "ooh maybe we're in a computer!" possibility: it doesn't matter.  In the slightest.  My reality is my reality even if it's in a computer or someone's imagination.  There would be a problem if the laws were inconsistent, but the way to approach that is to assume the laws are consistent and modify that view if it turns out they aren't (eg: if gravity suddenly reverses direction I will revise my belief).

You seem to be positing that the universe might be very, very slightly inconsistent (quantum events may occasionally go the wrong way!) but I put it to you that if the universe is very very slightly inconsistent, to the extent that we can't even measure it, then it doesn't matter at all.  It might as well be consistent for our purposes.

Preachin' to the choir here, buddy. My whole rant that you took that line out of was just some supporting arguments for empiricism being unfalsifiable; asking for evidence of solipsism is pretty much identical to asking for evidence for atheism. That was the point I was making (and to no one in particular).

Back to our situation, empiricism and <insert religion here> are both built upon... well nothing actually, except "because I wanna believe it."

Fenrir spent a good while explaining the difference and you respond like this?  I'll state the difference one more time.

An axiom that is clearly required in order to get anywhere, that can immediately be revised if it turns out to be untrue (possibilities: if gravity reverses, or conservation of momentum suddenly stops applying, or energy starts being created out of nowhere, or the speed of light in a vacuum changes).

vs

An axiom that has no clear basis and no possible method of falsification plus the previous axiom.

Can you really see no way in which you could attack one position but not the other without resorting to an oversimplification?

Axioms are things that we claim to be self evident. I think you're confusing those and hypothesis, because that's what you're describing in the first part.

I don't want to get into a semantics argument, though. I've had enough of those.


I'll restate my argument again, in different words. If someone can point out where we're talking past each other, that'd be great, since I'm tired of this circular argument.

These are my premises I hold to be true. Attack one of these:
- Religious axioms are unfalsifiable (such as "god exists")
- Empiricism as an axiom is unfalsifiable
- Being unfalsifiable brings cause for doubt

This is my conclusion. Point out any logical fallacies if you disagree with it, assuming you have no problems with the premises:
- Any argument built upon the assertion that "unfalsifiable is bad" must necessarily affect empiricism as well as any religious axiom, up to and including full rejection of the unfalsifiable.

And as some side notes:
- Any argument saying "unfalsifiable is neutral" does not provide supporting evidence for anything.
- Any argument saying "unfalsifiable is good" must apply to all things unfalsifiable, which is demonstrably false as most are mutually exclusive.

[Grek]

Very simple words for a very simple argument:

Empericists say: God is a bad theory because it assumes too many things without backing them up.

But kaijyuu says: Science also assumes things! Assuming things is bad and makes you wrong! Empericists are wrong!

But then Grek says: Assumuptions are sometimes needed. But they should not be made if you can avoid it. Science only assumes what can't be avoided! Religion assumes other, extra things which can be avoided! Don't assume those things. Choose science.

[Leafsnail]

Preachin' to the choir here, buddy. My whole rant that you took that line out of was just some supporting arguments for empiricism being unfalsifiable; asking for evidence of solipsism is pretty much identical to asking for evidence for atheism. That was the point I was making (and to no one in particular).

So it doesn't matter?  Good.

Axioms are things that we claim to be self evident. I think you're confusing those and hypothesis, because that's what you're describing in the first part.

I don't want to get into a semantics argument, though. I've had enough of those.

Then we won't need to go over the technical definition of axiom.  Good.

- Religious axioms are unfalsifiable (such as "god exists")

I accept this one.

This isn't true in all cases - some religious people take perfectly falsifiable axioms and then ignore the evidence to the contrary (see: creationists).  But this is true for the cases we're talking about (gods who do not do anything that can be observed or tested) so this one's fine.

- Empiricism as an axiom is unfalsifiable

I reject this statement.  Or at least I think it's poorly defined enough to be problematic.

Empiricism isn't really an axiom or an assumption.  It's a method of working out the nature of the universe that depends on certain assumptions: specifically, that there's an objective and consistent reality.  This is the actual axiom/ assumption/ whatever that you're claiming is unfalsifiable here, as far as I can tell, unless you want to clarify what you mean by empiricism.

I do not see how this assumption is unfalsifiable - it makes a clear prediction as to the nature of the universe.  If reality is not objective or consistent we could easily notice when it behaves in radically inconsistent ways (note: quantum mechanics doesn't really count here - the outcome of individual events may be random, but if you take many events they conform to a consistent probability function).

Compare this to statements along the lines of "god exists but he does not interact with the universe in any way" - these can't be falsified as they make no testable predictions.

- Being unfalsifiable brings cause for doubt

Kindof - I'd go further than "brings cause for doubt".  If a theory is unfalsifiable even in theory (ie, something that is currently unfalsifiable due to us not having sufficient technology to test it isn't included in this statement) then it's actually not making any claim about the universe as it exists at all.  Thus the "theory" can be rejected as an irrelevant non-theory.

This is my conclusion. Point out any logical fallacies if you disagree with it, assuming you have no problems with the premises:
- Any argument built upon the assertion that "unfalsifiable is bad" must necessarily affect empiricism as well as any religious axiom, up to and including full rejection of the unfalsifiable.

The sticking point that I think kills this conclusion is that empiricism isn't an assumption/ axiom in itself - it's a method built on a necessary assumption, yes, but that assumption is falsifiable.  I have explained earlier why I think other assumptions that people cite as pre-requisites for empiricism (like "how do you know reality is real") are not in fact necessary.

- Any argument saying "unfalsifiable is neutral" does not provide supporting evidence for anything.
- Any argument saying "unfalsifiable is good" must apply to all things unfalsifiable, which is demonstrably false as most are mutually exclusive.

We should definitely try having a debate sometime with one of these assumptions as given.  The results would be pretty funny.

[Hanslanda]

And the God Emperor of Mankind.

Not tolerant, not loving, and not reasonable. Emps advocated the oppression of psykers and abhumans, hated the xeno, and didn't listen to any point of view but his own. That last part is even what lead to his downfall, since he wouldn't listen to his psyker clone-son-thing Magnus the Red.

This is opposed to the Interex, who were tolerant and reasonable. They let their people know about the dangers of KAYOS, unlike the Imperium, and this kept them much safer from it since no one with actual knowledge of what Chaos entails would want to join up. They allied with any peaceful alien races they could find, which made them stronger. And it would have worked out if not for the Imperium conquering them.

Seriously, the Emperor absolutely sucked at his job. The only reason it went so well in the first place was that he was so unbelievably powerful, thanks to his psyker powers no less, the hypocrite.

Someone just used the Emperor of Mankind seriously in an argument about religion. My life is complete.

Sigh. This one struck a bit of a chord with me. Here.

[Frumple]

Struck a bit of a chord for me, too. Nothing like showing off nothing but worst case scenarios and wrapping it in a viciously sexist package to make me want to twig out a bit against rabid anti-religious folks. And I am someone who's near-rabidly opposed to religious organization. That doesn't mean I spew that kind of vitrol out, though. Bloody well unconstruive, it is. If you can't dissuade others from religious leaning, then better to guide them toward the benevolent practice of faith rather than attack and make them react with hostility. As per shit like that, ngh. That's not the face of good faith.

Never disrespect the enemy, for that is the first and most fundamental step on the path of being surprised by them, to one's own detriment. Proper strategy requires you to know both yourself (your position) and your enemy (other positions)... and the latter as you know yourself. Through this, you need not fear the results of a thousand battles.

[penguinofhonor]

Someone just used the Emperor of Mankind seriously in an argument about religion. My life is complete.

this is what gives me hope that this can be the most productive atheism thread yet

[Hanslanda]

Someone just used the Emperor of Mankind seriously in an argument about religion. My life is complete.

this is what gives me hope that this can be the most productive atheism thread yet

Once upon a time, Bay12 was like, 'Religion? Atheism? Let's fix this shit.' Suddenly, they were struck by a strange mood, and they started discussing and discussing, demanding definitions and descriptions, examples and counter-examples, theories and facts.
Soon, they emerged from their strange mood with an artifact in hand. They showed this artifact to all the people of the world.
And the atheists and religious people looked at each other, for once understanding the opposite position.

And everyone hugged.

[Sheb]

Well, not sure, I feel like this thread went the way of many political thread: most (all?) religious people left, leaving only people that agree with each other.

[Hanslanda]

...Aaaand there's my alarm clock, right on que. Time to wake up. :/

[penguinofhonor]

Well, not sure, I feel like this thread went the way of many political thread: most (all?) religious people left, leaving only people that agree with each other.

Yeah... hopefully you guys are still watching.

[Sheb]

I'm an atheist too. :p

[Frumple]

... I think religions are pretty. Religious organizations, not so much, but the pictures (metaphysical or otherwise) religious concept systems construct are aesthetically pleasing to me. Especially the more esoteric and/or robust theological work... they twist some pretty impressive knots trying to make everything fit together, or do neat acrobatics trying to get the various parts of their dogma to work cohesively. It's fun to watch, in an odd sense.

I get the same kick watching people world build for RPG systems or games or whatever, too. Same sort of pretty.

[Graknorke]

Nothing like showing off nothing but worst case scenarios and wrapping it in a viciously sexist package

How exactly was that a "viciously sexist package"? Just because it was a woman who was wrong and a man who was right? I would think that closely going over what sex someone is so much is more sexist than just ignoring it where it isn't relevant.