Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Darth J]

I can see why you have a soft spot for Mormon apologetics, Ray, seeing as how it comports with your preferred methodology of making s*** up and then carrying on as if the s*** you made up out of nowhere is an established fact.

And your evidence for this is......?

Funny you should ask! It's right in your next sentence, where you continue to assert that I am a pseudoskpetic, even then I have already shown in this thread that I don't have those characteristics.

I don't apologise, nor do I advocate apologetics. Would you like to check out my blog over the past three years and point out where I engage in apologetics? Be warned, however, that it is pseudoskeptic-unfriendly.

It depends. Does your blog have any reliable information about Dungeons & Dragons?

Like to address This entry while you're at it. Be warned, however, that it's not a UFO blog. After you've read through the links, archives and watched the videos, get back to me with your detailed refutations.

No. I'm really not interested in more of your unicorn hunts cum homework assignments.

As to your current demonstration of that methodology, I did not say that it is apologetics' fault that the LDS Church is a silly cult with ridiculous beliefs. That's the fault of Joseph Smith, Thomas S. Monson, and a lot of people in between those bookends. The fault of Mormon apologetics is that it catalyzes that realization.

Make sure you inform the Mormons you're "defending" from "unjust criticism" know this!

I see that in your righteous indignation, you have confused me with Kishkumen. A good way to tell us apart is that his avatar is a Harry Potter character, whereas mine is usually a Star Wars character.

I do have a suggestion for you, though. If you really want to advance the UFO gospel, stop talking about it. There might be a reasonable person who can make a coherent argument in favor of a proposition who should be talking about UFO's. But when someone who is the opposite of that becomes an evangelist for the UFO gospel, it sort of taints the underlying subject matter.

I have a suggestion for you too, Darth J. If you want to help Mormons who encounter apologetics, who might "lose faith" like you did, don't say anything about it being a "silly cult" with "ridiculous beliefs". In fact, maybe you should leave it to someone like John Dehlin and just shut up?

What makes you think I want to help people who encounter Mopologetics? Help them stay in the Church, at any rate?

[_Darth J]

I gather from the last several pages of this thread that Ray A is not likely not be favoring us with anything relevant to the OP.

I wonder what the Bayesian probability is of that happening.

[_EAllusion]

This is a debate in epistemology, but I believe prior probability is subjective. It's determined by the web of ideas that underlie and connect to the hypothesis in question. Those ideas themselves are subject to analysis to determine how confident one should be in them. In a message board conversation Bill Hamblin once tried to argue that prior probability is all about whatever presuppositions you choose to make, and all are equally nonrational to hold. I think Darth is suspicious that the notion of prior probability leads to that. But it doesn't. The initial probabilities used in this reasoning can be questioned on various grounds, but at least they come from somewhere; they weren’t drawn from a hat. It's just how confident you should be in an idea's chance of being correct absent consideration of the data under analysis. Generally speaking, the more connected a proposition is to other ideas you have strong confidence in, the higher its prior probability. The more heretofore unjustified claims or implausible requirements an idea requires of you, the lower its prior probability.

Bayesian probability is just trying to formally express the nature of rational inference. You don't need to buy strict Bayesian reasoning to agree that when we determine how rational it is to think something in light of some set of observations, we consider how much the weight of the data improves our underlying, prior confidence in that idea.

I think everyone has heard the expression "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And I think many skeptical sorts take that as a basic rule of thumb to guide their analysis of ideas. Bayesian prior probability is a strong way conceptualize that assertion in a way that makes it a plausible epistemic rule. "Extraordinary claims" are those with low prior probability.

[_MrStakhanovite]

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[_Darth J]

This is a debate in epistemology, but I believe prior probability is subjective. It's determined by the web of ideas that underlie and connect to the hypothesis in question. Those ideas themselves are subject to analysis to determine how confident one should be in them. In a message board conversation Bill Hamblin once tried to argue that prior probability is all about whatever presuppositions you choose to make, and all are equally nonrational to hold. I think Darth is suspicious that the notion of prior probability leads to that. But it doesn't. The initial probabilities used in this reasoning can be questioned on various grounds, but at least they come from somewhere; they weren’t drawn from a hat. It's just how confident you should be in an idea's chance of being correct absent consideration of the data under analysis. Generally speaking, the more connected a proposition is to other ideas you have strong confidence in, the higher its prior probability. The more heretofore unjustified claims or implausible requirements an idea requires of you, the lower its prior probability.

Bayesian probability is just trying to formally express the nature of rational inference. You don't need to buy strict Bayesian reasoning to agree that when we determine how rational it is to think something in light of some set of observations, we consider how much the weight of the data improves our underlying, prior confidence in that idea.

I think everyone has heard the expression "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And I think many skeptical sorts take that as a basic rule of thumb to guide their analysis of ideas. Bayesian prior probability is a strong way conceptualize that assertion in a way that makes it a plausible epistemic rule. "Extraordinary claims" are those with low prior probability.

EAllusion:

Maybe a way to express this is that I think Bayesian probability and the principles of evidence I've been talking about are complimentary. That would involve what data you're willing to factor into your Bayesian analysis, and what presuppositions you're willing to make.

You can see my question about P(h), though, right? If you're doing a quantitative analysis, not just qualitative, you have to pick a number.

[_Darth J]

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The absence of extraordinary evidence is not evidence of the absence of extraordinary claims.

[_RayAgostini]

Funny you should ask! It's right in your next sentence, where you continue to assert that I am a pseudoskpetic, even then I have already shown in this thread that I don't have those characteristics.

And you think I believe that, when your statements point in the opposite direction? See below for one example:

No. I'm really not interested in more of your unicorn hunts cum homework assignments.

You're either dishonest or self-deluded. I'm inclined to think the latter. You sit back and criticise "unicorn hunts", but refuse to read evidence. This is exactly how you were on the UFO thread. You're full of pseudoskeptical dogma.

What makes you think I want to help people who encounter Mopologetics? Help them stay in the Church, at any rate?

Actually, I understood your position.

What I wanted to probe is whether Kish and Scratch also understand it (I think Scratch does). If they do, then the whole structure of "defending Mormons from nasty apologists" falls with an even bigger thud than the Roman Empire.

There are no pure motives here, only ulterior motives, which ultimately are to destroy faith, under the guise of "helping those poor Mormons who get attacked by apologists". I'm willing to give Kish some leeway, but he may have to do some serious rethinking about his "alliance" with you.

[_static]

First, we are currently on 4th ed. rules. 1st ed. rules are no longer used in official games. Second, even in 1st ed. "illusionist" is not a class, it is a sub-class as evidenced by your own quote.

First Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons™ Character Creation
AD&D Character Class: Illusionist

A sub-class of magic-users, illusionists have similar restrictions ........

Jesus Christ, Simon Belmont, can't you even get something right by accident?

LOL! Yup, you're always right. Keep telling yourself that while I keep using your extremely poor arguments and demonstrated lack of knowledge about almost everything as fodder for my next trip to the bathroom.

By the way, my name is Stan. What's yours?

[Guest]

What I wanted to probe is whether Kish and Scratch also understand it (I think Scratch does). If they do, then the whole structure of "defending Mormons from nasty apologists" falls with an even bigger thud than the Roman Empire.

There are no pure motives here, only ulterior motives, which ultimately are to destroy faith, under the guise of "helping those poor Mormons who get attacked by apologists". I'm willing to give Kish some leeway, but he may have to do some serious rethinking about his "alliance" with you.

Ray, I don't have allies. I don't belong to a team. Scratch and I may get into a fight tomorrow, a fight in which he threatens to reveal information about me. You just don't know. He's done it before. He may do it again. Darth and I have had pretty damned heated arguments over politics. We don't always agree. I doubt he considers me his bosom pal. I don't really understand this stuff about teams, and alliances, and who I am supposed to agree with and side with regardless of my personal opinion on a subject. It just seems so antithetical to the idea of being on MDB and loving the whole free speech atmosphere.

I think the real genius here is mercyngrace. Why, M&G explained in what I thought were very compelling words how, even though she is a follower of Christ, she doesn't have to go around the internetz defending Daniel Peterson from attacks. I think mercyngrace is awesome. She and I may differ on a lot of things, but I was totally with her on the idea of living the principles she believes in and not kowtowing to this baloney about the jersey you wear and which team you need to be on.

Liz is kinda like this too in her own way. She has friends. She helps her friends. She doesn't say, "well X is an ex-Mormon, so I have to be tougher on X than I am on Y," or vice versa.

Now, I think that you are right about the motives of some to destroy faith. They don't think believing in things they consider stupid to be a virtue on the part of the believer. I understand why that would be. At the same time, I am cynical to the point that I don't consider it to be an indisputable improvement when people stop believing in things that are not true, since they are liable to cling to something else that isn't true either. But there is more to it than that.

What I think is true is that we need to be always vigilant against the inhumanity of people against other people. This is something that knows no boundaries of belief or unbelief. It just is. People treat each other badly, sometimes spectacularly so. Again, I have been liking how mercyngrace is not about doing that, even when it means fighting the good fight for the cause of Team Peterson.

Now, I am not the best example of Christlike humanity or anywhere close, I grant you. I am a merciless tease who has an unruly sense of humor. I love to mock pomposity and sanctimony. It is a weakness of mine. At the same time, I try not to lose sight of the humanity of all of us--our shared suffering, beauty, and vulnerability. Why, I imagine I have had a kind thought and said a kind word about most of the people I have poked fun at and criticized. I don't want to be their enemy. I don't wish them ill.

So what if I find some arguments stupid and hate it when someone says mean stuff about Laura Compton for disagreeing with that old fart Boyd Packer? In the end we are all human beings. I refuse to reverence one any more than I do the other. I pray that I may never cease to be human and tolerant of all, ever striving not to harm others. Sometimes that latter part is sorely difficult for me, I'll admit. I do love to tease people.

[_Kishkumen]

LOL! Yup, you're always right. Keep telling yourself that while I keep using your extremely poor arguments and demonstrated lack of knowledge about almost everything as fodder for my next trip to the bathroom.

Let's not explore that one too much further.