DiscussMormonism.com

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sun May 15, 2022 6:08 pm

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Sun May 15, 2022 3:43 pm

Maybe so or perhaps you are attaching a complexity that isn't there to justify your decisions or feelings. People can find meaning in just about anything if they convince themselves that there is meaning in that thing.

OK, sure, and this could be applied to you in reverse just as easily. People can find meaninglessness in just about anything if they convince themselves that there is no meaning in that thing.

Bahahahahahahaha! So true!

My new signature line!

Don

Don Bradley wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 5:21 am

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sun May 15, 2022 6:08 pm

OK, sure, and this could be applied to you in reverse just as easily. People can find meaninglessness in just about anything if they convince themselves that there is no meaning in that thing.

Bahahahahahahaha! So true!

My new signature line!

Don

Suppose we combine both...

People can find anything in just about anything if they convince themselves that thing is there.

Okay then. Logic has left the building. Although seriously, finding imaginary patterns simply because you assumed the patterns were there beforehand sounds like a much bigger problem.

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Tue May 17, 2022 4:27 pm

I disagree that I've adopted an epistemology that dismisses it from the outset. I dismiss it simply because there is no good reason to assume it is so.

When you dismiss something just because you have no positive reason to accept it then you are dismissing it from the outset. What else could "dismiss it from the outset" mean?

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 6:24 am

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Tue May 17, 2022 4:27 pm

I disagree that I've adopted an epistemology that dismisses it from the outset. I dismiss it simply because there is no good reason to assume it is so.

When you dismiss something just because you have no positive reason to accept it then you are dismissing it from the outset. What else could "dismiss it from the outset" mean?

I have only used dismissal “from the outset” to mean dismissed a priori, or in other words, before any consideration of the conditions. DS has articulated multiple times now that this is not his approach, as he has evaluated the situation and found “no good reason.” The key point being he did NOT dismiss it arbitrarily and before consideration. But I come from a more statistically oriented point of view, so that may not be universal.

I don't really want to jump on dastardly stem for a phrase, but maybe we can pursue the point abstractly.

If I assign something a low Bayesian prior probability, that's dismissing it from the outset.

If I have a more neutral prior but I consider some data and find that my posterior probability is low, then to me that's not dismissing something just because I have no positive reason for it. That's dismissing it on positive grounds.

If I have a more neutral prior, I consider some data, and find that the posterior probability hasn't been lowered appreciably below the prior, then that's not dismissing the proposition in any way. It's still in the running with at least some modest probability.

So I just don't see how one can dismiss something just because one has no reason to accept it, without dismissing it a priori.

Don Bradley wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 5:03 am

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Tue May 17, 2022 4:27 pm

I disagree that I've adopted an epistemology that dismisses it from the outset. I dismiss it simply because there is no good reason to assume it is so.

DS,

I think perhaps this very statement on your part strengthens Kishkumen's observation. In insisting that spiritual experience has to have good reason to validate it outside that experience, this implies that you dismiss the epistemic value of spiritual experience from the outset.

Most human worldviews have embraced such experience and rational discourse as complementary ways of knowing.

Don

Thanks for the comment, Don. I'd say dismissing it from the outset is to say there is no possibility for it. I disagree with that. If ever a spiritual realm can be validated in some way, I'd be happy to accept it. That's why I say I don't dismiss it from the outset. And yes, of course, I do not think invoking personal spiritual experience, particularly as undefined as its been used here, gives good reason to think there is a spirit realm.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 6:24 am

When you dismiss something just because you have no positive reason to accept it then you are dismissing it from the outset. What else could "dismiss it from the outset" mean?

I responded to Don's concern here just now. From the outset would mean, as I see it, dismissing it because it's not possible. I'm happy to consider any argument for a spirit realm and I'm happy to consider any evidence. I simply haven't seen it.

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 1:10 pm

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 6:24 am

When you dismiss something just because you have no positive reason to accept it then you are dismissing it from the outset. What else could "dismiss it from the outset" mean?

I responded to Don's concern here just now. From the outset would mean, as I see it, dismissing it because it's not possible. I'm happy to consider any argument for a spirit realm and I'm happy to consider any evidence. I simply haven't seen it.

It never ceases to amaze me that the argument from popularity still holds so much sway for beliefs. I would like to know what threshold is used for believers when they apply their standard for beliefs to other questions. Flying Spaghetti Monster? Bigfoot? Nessie? Alien abductions? Do believers dismiss all of these a-priori?

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 7:35 am

I don't really want to jump on dastardly stem for a phrase, but maybe we can pursue the point abstractly.

If I assign something a low Bayesian prior probability, that's dismissing it from the outset.

If I have a more neutral prior but I consider some data and find that my posterior probability is low, then to me that's not dismissing something just because I have no positive reason for it. That's dismissing it on positive grounds.

If I have a more neutral prior, I consider some data, and find that the posterior probability hasn't been lowered appreciably below the prior, then that's not dismissing the proposition in any way. It's still in the running with at least some modest probability.

So I just don't see how one can dismiss something just because one has no reason to accept it, without dismissing it a priori.

Priors are set before considering data. If there is no data, then how do we raise a prior? Priors have to be set on some basis. If someone claims, "I jumped over a building using no mechanisms to aid me". And in investigating that claim we set a prior, we have to set it based on what we can surmise about human ability to leap.

No one has ever jumped over something 8 feet and a quarter inches tall without an aid to get them there. If the claimed building that was leaped over is 15 feet tall, then we can safely set the prior at very unlikely. There's never been data to show it's possible.

If we have nothing, absolutely nothing on which to base our prior, of course the prior is set low. I get that people see that as wanting to dismiss the claim from the outset. But its not. It's actually doing the opposite as I see it. It's setting the likelihood before all the data is taken into account. If the data that follows justifies the claim, then the probability raises in likelihood.

In considering whether there is a different world of spirits from our world, I don't even know how to set a prior at this point. I've asked for definitions and haven't gotten any. That makes it a pretty squirrely claim from the start. If we ask for evidence, we get a bunch of people, and granted when I say a bunch I mean a real bunch, claiming they have had spiritual experience. When pressed, we hear something like (granted put a bit uncharitably for brevity's sake) "I really think there's a spirit realm and since I think it and have experienced it, it's really there". The frustration to me is we're running in a circle here.

What is the spirit world?

Its what we experience spiritually

The circle just continues.

To be clear, from the outset, I actually accepted a spirit world. It's what my parents taught me since I was aware of anything. I'm here after decades of accepting a spirit world for me. A spirit world really must have been in my mind given I loved my parents and trusted them, when I was young. Then as I grew, I too had spiritual experience. Now its far more likely that I dreamed and imagined a different world, as I see it, and called that a spirit world. I haven't said there is no possibility for a spirit world even today. I simply disagree that we have good reason to think there is such a world.

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 1:22 pm

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 1:10 pm

I responded to Don's concern here just now. From the outset would mean, as I see it, dismissing it because it's not possible. I'm happy to consider any argument for a spirit realm and I'm happy to consider any evidence. I simply haven't seen it.

It never ceases to amaze me that the argument from popularity still holds so much sway for beliefs. I would like to know what threshold is used for believers when they apply their standard for beliefs to other questions. Flying Spaghetti Monster? Bigfoot? Nessie? Alien abductions? Do believers dismiss all of these a-priori?

Could not agree more here, Rivendale. I'm surprised by what they jumped on to here. Those who think there's a God or a spirit world, tend to think those who don't see good reason for those are objecting from the outset. That certainly hasn't been my point. Its after much consideration for me, and that after I had been trained for decades to think that the imagined world was real. That's the opposite from at the outset.

We don't imagine an alien and think its really real. We don't imagine a bigfoot and think it's really real...that is if we're going to be rational beings. We need good reason to think they are real. To think they are real on bad reasons is just plain irrationality. That's no different for God or a spirit world, as I see it. They may complain that's positivism or scientism. I disagree and call it rational to think we ought to rely on what is more probable in our questions.