Real Open-mindedness and Skepticism

[_Gadianton]

Not really. At least, not anywhere near proportional to the theoretical investment.

M-Theory is the hot spot of theoretical physics.

[_marg]

Well in my brief reading I don't understand it, otherthan it's all theoretical at this point. And at http://creationwiki.org/M-theoryit says:

"The one down side to M-theory, is that at present it make no unique predictions that could be used to falsify it or at least none that are currently testable, but this is a common difficulty with cutting edge theories that under development. This is a problem of developing the theory and technology catching up, and is not inherent to M-theory itself"

[_Gadianton]

and is not inherent to M-theory itself

So "verification" can't capture the essence of science since cutting edge science seems to have this problem.

Hypothetical Apologist:

As most LDS will tell you, one day we will be able to prove the existence of a spirit, technology just needs to catch up.

[_EAllusion]

I said science uses observations of phenomena sure, but science includes observations of predictions.

So for example I believe Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't able to be verified but it offered predictions which eventually were verified later.

I can't think of any science theory which doesn't offer predictions.

There are other ways to justify beliefs outside of science. If you think there aren't, then you are arguing the position I said you were implying. That's it.

People can have justified beliefs, but they aren't reliable if they have no predictive value which can be verified at least potentially.

Is your belief in induction reliable?

So for example theorizing a ghost moved the lampshade because it was observed to have moved, is fine and sure it's a justified belief.

It's not really a justified belief. It's a conclusion that completely unwarranted from the evidence before us. Lamp shades moving is a coherent prediction from a ghost theory that increases its likelihood, though. Why it isn't a good theory is more complex than that.

Well you see, you really don't help the cause of promoting rationalism when you say things like "ghosts can exist"

Ghosts could potentially exist. Denying this is irrational. If you have a problem granting any ground, however reasonable, that might be positive in any way towards the existence of something you do not believe in, the problem is with you, not me. Moreover, my point was more that ghosts could easily come to be understood as part of the natural world and eventually be as "natural" as atomic elements.

You said, the ghost theory was just an argument from ignorance. But the video maker was doing more than that he was targeting those who invoke supernaturalist explanations for phenomena.

[/quote]

In that section, he is attacking a type of argument from ignorance also known as argument from incredulity used to support what we often call "supernatural" ideas. That's all.

[_EAllusion]

Heh. Marg went to creationwiki, a hardcore fundamentalist/creationist website, to learn about the cutting edge of string theory?

[_marg]

Heh. Marg went to creationwiki, a hardcore fundamentalist/creationist website, to learn about the cutting edge of string theory?

Ya, I just realized that myself and came back to say something about it. You beat me to it.

Anyhow at this point in time the theory is theoretical.

[_marg]

and is not inherent to M-theory itself

So "verification" can't capture the essence of science since cutting edge science seems to have this problem.

Hypothetical Apologist:

As most LDS will tell you, one day we will be able to prove the existence of a spirit, technology just needs to catch up.

Right, but these theories are backed up with mathematical data, they don't have consensus at the moment. And they are only as good as how useful they are. They are theoretical, and I doubt will ever gain acceptance until they do offer something which can be predicted from them which bears out. And they are viewed in that light, not as dogmatic theories to be accepted. They are more a work in progress from which more understanding may develop.

[_marg]

I said science uses observations of phenomena sure, but science includes observations of predictions.

So for example I believe Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't able to be verified but it offered predictions which eventually were verified later.

I can't think of any science theory which doesn't offer predictions.

There are other ways to justify beliefs outside of science. If you think there aren't, then you are arguing the position I said you were implying. That's it.

Sure there are ways to justify beliefs outside science. But if the concern is what happens in reality or actuality, then anything outside science is unreliable and claims made which are not backed up with verifiable evidence which offer no predictive value are unreliable.

People can have justified beliefs, but they aren't reliable if they have no predictive value which can be verified at least potentially.

Is your belief in induction reliable?

It's not a phenomenon E.A.. It's a created concept. As far as the concept it is an attempt to lead to a best fit explanation, given the data.

So for example theorizing a ghost moved the lampshade because it was observed to have moved, is fine and sure it's a justified belief.

It's not really a justified belief. It's a conclusion that completely unwarranted from the evidence before us. Lamp shades moving is a coherent prediction from a ghost theory that increases its likelihood, though. Why it isn't a good theory is more complex than that.

It's a justified belief in the sense that the person saw evidence of the lamp shade moving and drew a conclusion from that. So it's a justified belief to that person.

Well you see, you really don't help the cause of promoting rationalism when you say things like "ghosts can exist"

Ghosts could potentially exist. Denying this is irrational. If you have a problem granting any ground, however reasonable, that might be positive in any way towards the existence of something you do not believe in, the problem is with you, not me.

Anything which can be imagined if it isn't logically contradictory can exist. But you muddle the issue when you get into that sort of philosophical thinking. There is no reason to believe ghosts exist so why bother speculating as if it is rational to do so?

Moreover, my point was more that ghosts could easily come to be understood as part of the natural world and eventually be as "natural" as atomic elements.

Ya I know that was your point. And the point that the video maker had was.. 'so what'?..believe whatever you wish, but until you provide an operational definition for what ghosts are supposed to be and produce valid evidence, or something of predictive value it is justifiable to reject your point and in my opinion it's a waste of time speculating on.

What you are doing E.A. in encouraging people who hold irrational ideas to continue holding them.

You said, the ghost theory was just an argument from ignorance. But the video maker was doing more than that he was targeting those who invoke supernaturalist explanations for phenomena.

In that section, he is attacking a type of argument from ignorance also known as argument from incredulity used to support what we often call "supernatural" ideas. That's all.[/quote]

Through-out the whole video he was targeting those who hold ideas outside science. That's more than just an argument from incredulity. If his focus was an argument from incredulity then he would have discussed why one theory although a naturalistic explanation would be more reliable or better than another naturalistic explanation.

[_Kevin Graham]

Accusing people of "unjustified beliefs" is a Sam Harris tactic that is gaining popularity among radical atheists (and by radical I mean those who attack God believers), and it is just a nice way of callng religious people stupid or naïve. But most of these charges are unjustified themselves because they are based on fallacious premise such as the one EA has pin-pointed. What they really mean to say is that your belief is unjustified to them. How can they say it is unjustified to you without delving into arrogance? They cannot explain why you believe something via experience anymore than they can explain what it is like to be a bat.

I also like what EA was trying to say about the weakness of "supernatural." This is something I have tried to convey in the past. To call something supernatural at the outset essentally begs the question because if something is allowed to exist, then it isn't really supernatural at all. It would have to be a part of the natural world.

I find string theory fascinating for many reasons, but one thing that intrigues me the most is how well it is accepted within the scientific community, despite the dearth of evidence in its favor. They like it becuase it explains everything. Little strings of energy vibrating like harps much smaller than electrons, etc. Scentists who reject it call it philosophy, not science, simply because it doesn't fit the version of science described by marg. But science has experienced many paradigms, and t wasn't always the case that science had to produce verifiable predictions, be falsifiable, etc. in order for it to be considered science. What is the difference in saying gravity, electromagnetism and the S/W nuclear forces are a result of an undetectable God, and saying they are a result of undectable strings? Nothing really, but we're sure to see NOVA specials discussing the latter, but not the former.

[_marg]

Accusing people of "unjustified beliefs" is a Sam Harris tactic that is gaining popularity among radical atheists (and by radical I mean those who attack God believers), and it is just a nice way of callng religious people stupid or naïve.

People can believe whatever they wish, but those who hold unjustified beliefs hold beliefs which are unreliable.

But most of these charges are unjustified themselves because they are based on fallacious premise such as the one EA has pin-pointed.

E.A. did not point out any fallacious premise.

What they really mean to say is that your belief is unjustified to them. How can they say it is unjustified to you without delving into arrogance?

A belief is unjustified to others when there is nothing offered..which is the case with supernaturalistic claims.

They cannot explain why you believe something via experience anymore than they can explain what it is like to be a bat.

Believe whatever you wish, but don't expect others to believe you based on your say so of your experiences.

I also like what EA was trying to say about the weakness of "supernatural." This is something I have tried to convey in the past.

I'm sure you did. And this is my problem with E.A., in that he/she is likely to end up encouraging people to hold irrational beliefs rather than to appreciate the unreliability of such beliefs.

To call something supernatural at the outset essentally begs the question because if something is allowed to exist, then it isn't really supernatural at all. It would have to be a part of the natural world.

Well let's allow ghosts to exist, voila they aren't supernatural. Well if they aren't supernatural then they must exist within natural physical laws. When you demonstrate this I'll believe you, meanwhile it's a waste of time speculating.

I find string theory fascinating for many reasons, but one thing that intrigues me the most is how well it is accepted within the scientific community, despite the dearth of evidence in its favor. They like it becuase it explains everything.

Well of course if something explains everything, it will likely be well liked. Scientists appreciate they are dealing with how things actually happen via our perceptive abilities. It doesn't have to be a reflection of some ultimate reality.

Little strings of energy vibrating like harps much smaller than electrons, etc. Scentists who reject it call it philosophy, not science, simply because it doesn't fit the version of science described by marg.

“F” off. Have I discounted string theory? The fact is it doesn't have consensus atm, maybe never will. And if some scientists see it as philosophy so be it, that's their perogative.

But science has experienced many paradigms, and t wasn't always the case that science had to produce verifiable predictions, be falsifiable, etc. in order for it to be considered science. What is the difference in saying gravity, electromagnetism and the S/W nuclear forces are a result of an undetectable God, and saying they are a result of undectable strings? Nothing really, but we're sure to see NOVA specials discussing the latter, but not the former.

Well there isn't much difference from what I can tell. But at some point the theory has to offer something of value more than it being mere speculative theory. It has to offer something which can be mapped onto the world we perceive.

So you can type now huh? Good to see you back.