Bahahahahahahaha! So true!
My new signature line!
Don
Bahahahahahahaha! So true!
Suppose we combine both...
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?dastardly stem wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 4:27 pmI 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.
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.Physics Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 6:24 amWhen 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?dastardly stem wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 4:27 pmI 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.
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.Don Bradley wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 5:03 amDS,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.
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
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.Physics Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 6:24 amWhen 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?
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?dastardly stem wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 1:10 pmI 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.Physics Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 6:24 amWhen 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?
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.Physics Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 7:35 amI 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.
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.Rivendale wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 1:22 pmIt 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?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.