The Blatant Confirmation Bias and Gullibility of Materialists

_{William Murray

May 6, 2015

Naturalism, Psychology, Science, Selective Hyperskepticism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

UD regulars might want to check out this thread at The Skeptical Zone.

And follow it all the way through. In it you’ll get to see:

(1) EL make assertions (and doubles down on them) about a book she later admits she didn’t even bother to read, assertions which were demonstrable false;

(2) Keiths jump from the possibility of error/fraud in scientific studies on psi/the paranormal to the conclusion that the results must have been fraud/error;

(3) Countless groundless, blanket assertions best epitomized by Alan Fox’s blanket statement “It doesn’t happen”, who remains silent on how he knows psi events “don’t happen”;

(4) DNA_Jock completely misrepresent a past comment of mine on TSZ that concerned a video on spoon-bending saying I called it convincing evidence; I corrected him; he doubles down; I quote and link to the comment in question which explicitly proves him wrong (in fact, the opposite was true); and then he triples down on his misrepresentation.

(5) So-called “skeptics” defend as honest, good science the publicity-seeking, non-scientific antics of James Randi, a stage magician with deep, vested interests both professionally and financially in the outcomes of his “Randi Challenge” tests, who publicly and privately ridicules and attacks those whom he is supposed to be testing

Keep in mind that what I am ultimately doing in that thread (which at one point I explicitly explain, which doesn’t deter them one bit) is exposing their obvious, irrational confirmation bias and gullibility for all things that support their a priori materialist worldview. These guys will swallow whole what any third-hand skeptical website or stage magician tells them as long as it confirms their materialist view; they will deny, misrepresent, mis-remember, ridicule and denigrate all information and scientific research that appears to conflict with their worldview.

The confirmation bias and gullibility of their mindsets runs throughout the entire thread and is, IMO, breathtakingly obvious to any objective observer.

Comments

Barry: what is "obvious" is not necessarily true, or even right, as you can readily confirm by looking at what has been justified on the grounds of being "obvious" over human history. This applies both to science and to ethics. And one person's "it's obvious" is another person's "unsupported assertion". Which is why independent corroboration is so important in trying to figure out what is likely to be true.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

EL:
It [i.e., that the earth orbits the sun] is “objectively true” in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion.
Hmmm. For 1,500 year independent investigators looked at the evidence, indeed they looked at independent sets of evidence, and concluded that Ptolemaic cosmology was correct. Under EL's formulation of the phrase, during that 1,500 year period it was "objectively true" that the sun orbited the earth.Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

WJM @ 95:
It’s obvious and inescapable that . . .
Oh dear WJM. You've committed one of the classic blunders of debating with materialists. Pointing out that an obvious thing is obvious leaves you open to their "arrogant bastard" counter, which runs like this:
So that's your argument; that you, WJM, have decreed that you are obviously right and therefore no one can disagree with you. Arrogant bastard.
;-) Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

WJM:
Why is EL making such a trivial, nonsensical complaint? This scenario is often the case with people like EL; they question the definitions or attempts to undermine the most basic, trivial terms and statements as if they are trying to undermine or deflect her opponent’s rather simply put, straightforward statements.
A statement is neither "simply put" nor "straightforward" if you cannot give clear definitions of your terms. And I am bringing into question the concept you imply key term: "objectively true". If it refers to statement, there is a claimant who makes the statement. If there is no claimant, then it cannot refer to a statement. And so your own statement is not "simply put" - I suggest that it is fundamentally incoherent, and that if you were to unpack the concepts behind your terms, you would also find it to be so. Or not. Perhaps you can persuade me of the coherence of your position. But you won't do that unless you are willing to unpack your terms. In fact, you make a good job of describing my own position:
she described it as a sort of scientific-consensual confirmation towards objective accuracy
Yes, that's about it: that we don't have direct access to Reality (or "Objective Truth" if you prefer), but that we can iteratively propose, test, and hone predictive models that we can regard, always provisionally, as an approximation. I don't think we have access to anything more objective than that. I don't think it "trumps" logic - I think logic is one of the tools we use to propose and test our models. But we also need data for testing. This kind of statement makes little sense to me:
If the mind is not sound, and if the mind has no presumed objective capacity, it cannot be rational to make assertions of objective correctness about anything.
Whose mind? Who is doing the presuming? What do you even mean by "objective capacity"? That word "objective" keeps cropping up, applied to all kinds of nouns! As I said, and as you rightly paraphrased, for me "objective" denotes something that can be arrived at often by independently means, by independent observers, while "subjective" means something that is proper to the "subject" - a specific observer. So one "mind" - one person's independent view - is "subjective". That view becomes validated as "objective" if it can be corroborated by others independently. So if I see a ghost in the bedroom I do not know whether it is there or not (the same is not true of the rest of the objects in my bedroom, as I have independent corroboration of those, and of their general properties). If I tell someone I saw a ghost, and they also see it, that is suggestive, but now the observations are not independent. However, if I tell no-one, and someone else just happens to go into my bedroom, and say "hey, that's weird - there is some sort of ghost in there" - then the existence of a ghost starts to become a model worth testing further.
Does EL not realize that the proposition “the Earth orbits the sun” is either objectively true or not regardless of what scientific consensus agrees?
No because it is simply a simplified human model. It is an approximation. It's a good approximation, because it fits the data pretty well, and we know that because it is corroborated by many independent lines of enquiry from many independent researchers. The corroboration does not make it true - what makes it true-ish is that it makes good predictions. A better model will make better predictions, for example, model that unpacks the meaning of "orbit" in terms of gravitational forces. Now there may well be a Reality that we will ultimately model so well that our predictions are within extraordinarily tight tolerances. But that Reality, is not the True/False status of the statement: "The Earth orbits the sun". That statement is simply a useful model - a heuristic, even. A slightly more complex but more accurate model would be something like "the Earth follows an approximately circular trajectory around the common centre of gravity of sun and earth, which itself follows a more complex twisted path around the centre of our galaxy" Both statements are "true" in that they are good predictive models. But both statements are "false" in that they are incomplete. Neither are "objectively true" in the sense you mean, because they are statements made by human observers and modelers. However both are "objectively true" in the way that "the moon is made of green cheese" is not, in that they are corroborated, as reliable approximations, by many lines of independent enquiry pursued by independent obervers. And the only "assumption" we need is the assumption that I am not a brain-in-a-vat. Which I am happy to make. You seem unable to decide whether what I am saying is "trivial" or false. I'm happy to plead "trivial". But you are mistaken, I think, in thinking that what you are saying is "simple". Take even the statement "the Earth orbits the sun" - it sounds "simple" but its accuracy turns out to be only as good as the definition of the word "orbit" and "sun" and "round". Even ignoring galactic dynamics, it is not even as "objectively true" as "the Earth and the sun orbit around their common centre of gravity". Definitions matter. Which means that this:
A proposition is either objectively true or not regardless of what anyone or any group says or concludes.
is, I suggest, at best, misleading. A proposition is always made by a human being. So it doesn't exist in the absence of discourse. And very few worthwile propositions are cleanly true or false. The few that are can be settled very easily by appeal to independent observers (e.g. "did this coin fall heads or tails?".
If humans have no internal access to an objectively valid arbiter of incoming sensory data and correct thinking, we are lost,
Well, fortunately we aren't because we also have access to external corroboration. Both are important. And when we lose the capacity to distinguish between internal and external corroboration, then the result, sadly, is often psychosis. So, William, not only do I dispute your premises, and call your concepts into question, I don't even think your logic stands up to scrutiny!Elizabeth Liddle_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

For others: this is why it appears to me that some of our opponents are actually what they claim to be: bottom-up computations of physics. They seem to have an impenetrable self-reflective blind spot that simply cannot see "self" from within and intentionally consider a rational argument's meaning and implication. They just seem to react in defense of programming to key words and phrases and output a response that would ofthen fail the Turing test, utterly non-responsive to the meaning of the statements being processed.William J Murray_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

To sum up, EL: mind must be considered primary to the finding and discernment of objectively true statements simply because it is mind that identifies, organizes, evaluates and understands all incoming data; it is mind that sets up an evaluates experiments; it is mind that that proposes theories; it is mind that figures out how to test theories; it is mind that develops the means to "prove" or "disprove" those theories. ALL data is either received through the senses and goes to the mind for interpretation/processing or imagined/developed in the mind and then interpreted/processed. Your attempt to unseat the mind as necessarily primary by pointing to something entirely developed, organized, conducted, processed and evaluated by mind is utterly baffling. When you say the mind is "necessary" but not "sufficient", I suggest you rethink that propostion, because we do not actually have anything external to work with; all have is how our mind interprets sensations, and how our mind identifies, represents, categorizes and processes to conclusion that interpreted information. All we have that is even close to something "external" is the mental assumption/conclusion that our sensory data and representations are about something external. There is no way to avoid the necessary primacy of mind.William J Murray_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

As I said @36:
There’s no way, IMO, to penetrate self-deception from the outside. One must be willing to give up their self/world narrative – willing to admit their own foolishness – in order to even begin to evaluate their views honestly and objectively.
Early in the debate, EL asked me what I meant by "objective", and I replied:
A thing can be objectively true whether or not anyone has the capacity for discerning it as such. Was it not true that the Earth was orbiting the sun before anyone could discern that it was?
EL, in an attempt to defend her position that Empiricism (as she described it as a sort of scientific-consensual confirmation towards objective accuracy) somehow precedes or trumps logic (which is obviously untrue), attempts to undermine my description of what "objectively true" means:
... which seems to me to make the term “objectively true” meaningless. “True” is a quality of a claim. If there is no claimant, there are no claims to evaluate.
But ... where did I say there was no claimant? Where did I say there was no claim to be evaluated? Obviously, even if it's just EL and I talking about some thing that was true even before there were any sentient humans around to make claims about that thing, we are obviously talking about a claim or proposition (the Earth orbiting the sun) and whether or not that proposition is "objectively true" in the sense I defined "objectively true": whether or not anyone has the capacity for discerning it as such. Whether or not EL and I have the capacity for discerning a proposition as true or not, the proposition is still either true, or it is not (or it is improperly formed). Let's take the proposition that a virtually infinite number of concurrent, quantum-variant universes actually exist; whether or not EL and I have the capacity for discerning the truth of the proposition, it can still be true that such universes exist. As I said, the trueness of the proposition doesn't rely on our capacity to discern it as true, nor does it rely on consensual-scientific agreement. Why is EL making such a trivial, nonsensical complaint? This scenario is often the case with people like EL; they question the definitions or attempts to undermine the most basic, trivial terms and statements as if they are trying to undermine or deflect her opponent's rather simply put, straightforward statements. As if they are working to avoid the simpleness and straightforwardness of the argument by taking terms or phrases and figuring out some way to complicate them or turn them into straw men. It's obvious and inescapable that without an independent capacity to apply a mental arbiter assumed to be objectively valid (even if unrecognized at the time), no assessment of objective-world correctness or incorrectness can even get off the ground. All things about the world, whether scientific-empirical or not, is transformed into sensory data that must be identified, sorted and evaluated by the mind. There's simply no getting around this. If the mind is not sound, and if the mind has no presumed objective capacity, it cannot be rational to make assertions of objective correctness about anything. EL makes another trivial complaint after SB points out that "The law of non-contradiction is essential for establishing the truth of any premise". She says:
Essential but not sufficient.
But, the essential nature of logic as arbiter of all incoming sensory information is the whole ball game. If it is essential in determining whether or not a statement is objectively true, then logic, a mental commodity, must be considered objective in nature. If logic was subjective, then how anyone happened to evaluate incoming information, and whatever conclusion they happened to come to, would be logical as long as they subjectively considered it to be so. This is the nature of an argument; we are making the de facto assumption that logic is an objective arbiter of correct thinking. The materialist/physicalist must ask themselves here: how can this actually be the case? If thinking is subjective, and logic is subjectively created pattern of thoughts, how on Earth can we possibly consider logic an objective arbiter of correct thinking? Under materialism, that would be as absurd as thinking that there was an objectively valid arbiter of correct moral thinking. Look at what you say here, EL:
The statement “the Earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed” is a conclusion, made by human discerners, based on the available evidence. It is “objectively true” in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion.
Does EL not realize that the proposition "the Earth orbits the sun" is either objectively true or not regardless of what scientific consensus agrees? A proposition is either objective true or not regardless of how any conclusion about it has come to pass. Again, this is trivial, and EL's objection seems to be a huge effort to contrive some sort of support for "consensus science" as arbiter of what is objectively true, as if "consensus science" is ultimately something categorically distinct from "logic and sensory input", which is what I said in principle was how I discern objectively true statements. IOW, EL is arguing that "scientific consensus" is a "better" way of discerning objectively true statements, as if "scientific consensus" as something other than a process entirely derived from 'logic and sensory input". Well - hopefully entirely derived; subjective emotions and personal biases are hopefully excluded from the process. These "objections" that EL raises don't rise beyond the trivial and are baffling in that she doesn't seem to be able to comprehend their triviality. I and others here are spending our time explaining the obvious and responding to the trivial simply because EL cannot, or will not allow herself, to comprehend very simple, very straightforward things. (1) A proposition is either objectively true or not regardless of what anyone or any group says or concludes. (2) If humans have no internal access to an objectively valid arbiter of incoming sensory data and correct thinking, we are lost, because if the only arbiter of objectively true statements is external, that information must still go through our senses and internal thinking process. IOW, we must be able to first internally, correctly discern that independent observation and verification increases the probability that a proposition is objectively true, and correctly discern the limitations of that process and the problems of taking such consensus at face value. (3) Therefore, the individual human must have internal access to an objectively valid arbiter of correct thinking and sensory interpretation, and they must be capable of imposing the results of that arbitration onto their biology even if their biology currently says otherwise.William J Murray_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

UB, care to elaborate? KFkairosfocus_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

man o man o man o man... wowUpright BiPed_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

EL, our concern is that you are putting the cart before the horse. And, for the purposes of this discussion, your remarks on what the writer of Genesis thought or did not think is ungrounded, tangential and irrelevant, save to cast rhetorical suggestions that are loaded. Further to this, there are two operative senses of truth and a linked sense of objectively true. Truth first may mean the reality out there on the ground. It also commonly means what Aristotle suggested in his Metaphysics 1011b, that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. And it is manifest that the earth orbited the sun before we were ever aware of it as a possibility or could say that such was a well warranted, empirically tested observation. However provisional and constrained that warrant will be on limits of inductive reasoning. Now, too, no one here -- and this includes specifically SB -- is suggesting or implying that pure logic is enough to ground an inductive conclusion in science or elsewhere. To suggest such, is to erect and knock over a strawman. And yes, just as Newton et al were fully aware, we know the provisionality of inductive findings and the linked issue of testing on empirical reliability. Here is Newton in Opticks, Query 31, which I have cited here many times and which is a part of my now longstanding IOSE discussion on methods etc:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [--> merely speculative metaphysical] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.
Indeed, you may recognise in that the root of the somewhat simplistic summary "scientific method" as is commonly taught in schools. Objectivity in science hinges on empirical observation and testing per reasonable methods and skilled, knowledgeable practitioners. That is not in dispute, indeed it is precisely because of our concern for finding empirically confirmed adequate cause for FSCO/I etc that we have pointed to how reliably such signs point to intelligently directed configuration as cause. That is, attempted explanations of origin of life, body plans, mind, etc that pivot on the claimed powers of blind chance and mechanical necessity first forming reproducing life forms in Darwin's pond or the like prebiotic context, then going on to a process of cumulative chance variation and culling out on differential reproductive success from root to tips of the tree of life, fails to soundly address the vera causa principle. So, insofar as evidence may be held to be best explained on common descent, it may also be held to point to common design. But, we are also insistent that logic is part of the necessary foundation for all reasoning and that such logic requires a responsibly free thinker. Including, inductive work in science -- of course taking the modern broader view of induction as arguments based on empirical grounds that make conclusions more likely on premises that would embrace abduction etc. On the grounds, that we cannot but operate on that implicit premise, we are highlighting that any worldview that implies general delusion and/or undermines that sort of responsible freedom, is self-falsifying before we get to particular points of thought or action. That is, it fails the test of a necessary condition of rationality which is a foundational premise of any tenable system of thought. Where, as Reppert noted, evolutionary materialist views of mind run into serious trouble here, in trying to produce mind on brains as computational substrate with cause-effct bonds on signals and computing elements, rather than free rational contemplation, insight and judgement:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Such an account of mind and rationality, fails to achieve responsible freedom and rational insight/judgement. So, we are warranted to observe that to reason and think responsibly and to have exchanges towards doing so more correctly requires that we acknowledge our responsible freedom. Therefore, any scheme of thought that fails this test must be grand error. Thus, we find J B S Haldane's stricture; which is ancestral to Reppert's remarks above:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Evolutionary materialism is self-referentially incoherent and implies general delusion thus must be deemed false so long as we see that before anything else, we have to accept and live by the premise that we are responsibly free rational beings. KFkairosfocus_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

StephenB wrote
The law of non-contradiction is essential for establishing the truth of any premise.
Essential but not sufficient. The point I am making, and which I do not consider William has addressed, is that it is not possible to evaluate whether "A is objectively true" without an objective investigation i.e. one in which independent investigators can independently come to the same conclusions. Even then it can only be regarded as provisionally true, which is why all scientific conclusions are provisional. Earlier William wrote:
A thing can be objectively true whether or not anyone has the capacity for discerning it as such. Was it not true that the Earth was orbiting the sun before anyone could discern that it was?
which seems to me to make the term "objectively true" meaningless. "True" is a quality of a claim. If there is no claimant, there are no claims to evaluate. And all claims, I propose, are models of reality, not reality itself. The statement "the Earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed" is a conclusion, made by human discerners, based on the available evidence. It is "objectively true" in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, a few people reject that model, and the writers of Genesis had a quite different one. We can say that our modern model has more evidence to support it than the Genesis model, but that is a quite different than saying that "the earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed". For a start, what we mean by "orbit" has changed radically since we started investigating, and even Kepler's model has been refined. Was Kepler's model "objectively false" and is some other model that we have not yet established, the "objectively true" model? No, because all we have are models and the map is not the territory. We can, and I suggest do (and here I agree with William, that to do otherwise leads to solipsism) agree that there is a Reality "out there" that we can try to model with increasingly improved fit of model to data. And we could call that Reality "Truth" if we like. It's a good word. We could even call it "Objective truth", but it would not take the form of claims. And it might not exist. Evidence that it does is provided by the fact that independent observesr can make reliable predictions about the world, but quantum physics sometimes puts it in doubt: perhaps we create reality by the process of discovering it. But for practical purposes we can assume that our models can converge towards - if never reach - reality, and we test the "objective truth" of our models by their fit to wour data, valididated by independent observers pursuing independing lines of enquiry. Which is the method Randi proposes to his challengees. It is not bias. It is simply application of the only method, I submit, by which we can get closer to objectively well-fitting (I will not say "true") models of Reality.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

EL, I should add, on what basis can you be confident that you yourself are there as a responsibly free, rational observer, thinker, conclud-er, know-er and reporter -- esp. i/l/o evolutionary materialist scientism which by wider context is your perspective. I ask such on Crick, Provine, Haldane and more. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Isn't it a little late the day for Dr Liddle to be making this kind of obvious failure in judgement.Upright BiPed_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

It seems that EL is unaware that she is necessarily applying logic and trusting mind to form any good premise; to form any methodology of testing and evaluation of the premise; to fit the tests within a framework of expectations and shoulds and to comprehend what it all means. It's as if she think "empiricism" sets itself up and processes itself into valid conclusions without even requiring a rational mind. Perhaps she thinks that if she doesn't know she is applying logic - if she is not deliberately, knowingly applying logic, then she is not using logic? Baffling.William J Murray_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

EL
What have you got apart from empricism by which I mean: establishing that a phenomenon can be reliably observed by independent observers to establish the truth of the premises to which you apply your logic?
What you have is the assurance that logic, both deductive and inductive, applies not only to the mental models of syllogism and inference, but also to the corresponding logic of the real world. That is why reasoning properly from a true premise will always produce a true conclusion. The law of non-contradiction is true, ontologically, logically, and psychologically. That is why I can say, "if it rains, the streets will get wet."
Non contradiction et al won’t help you establish those premises, and without them you ain’t got nuthin’!
The law of non-contradiction is essential for establishing the truth of any premise. (Premise: I am looking at Jupiter through my telescope or, again-- Premise: Jupiter exists--Law of Non-Contradiction: Jupiter cannot also be Saturn or Mars), Indeed, the principle of non-contradiction underlies all reasoning. In order to know the true premise, you must also know that any contradictory premise is false. Without that law, any if/then proposition would be impossible. It is by first principles that we know how to interpret empirical evidence in a rational way. Evidence does not inform reason’s rules; reason’s rules inform evidence.---Always.
If I claim, for instance, that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, no amount of logic will tell you whether or not that statement is “objectively true”.
It is only by way of the law of contradiction that the principle of causality can be established. It is only by way of the law of causality, that we can establish HIV as a cause of AIDS. If the law of causality is not true 100% of the time, then we cannot identify any cause at all.
What WILL give you confidence that the statement is objectively true is consistent data from studies carried out by independent observers.
It is only because the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and causality are objectively true, that we can identify causes. Otherwise, it would be impossible to evaluate evidence in a rational way. According to the law of causality, a cause cannot give to an effect something that it does not have to give. Ignoring these laws, the researchers could say, “AIDs simply emerged from the air." If the cause does not have to be proportionate to the effect, there is no argument against it.StephenB_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

I thought Magic Johnson proved that money prevents HIV from becoming AIDS. :DJoe_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

EL said:
What have you got apart from empricism by which I mean: establishing that a phenomenon can be reliably observed by independent observers to establish the truth of the premises to which you apply your logic?
Empiricism doesn't exist without logic, and cannot validate anything without logic. Empiricism doesn't even mean anything without logic. Do you really not understand that without the principle of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction, the term "empiricism" doesn't mean anything in particular? Without the (often unspoken, often even unrecognized) principles of logic, there is no rational language. There is no rational method. There is no rational interpretation of facts. you and I cannot have a rational discussion without laying it out according to some basic, fundamental principles of logic. We wouldn't be able to understand anything the other person said without it. Your cart is before your horse, EL. Without primacy of mind, you have nothing. Your empiricism is nothing without an assumedly valid mental commodity (logic) to understand, and implement it and interpret the results.William J Murray_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

EL, what gives you confidence that you know that independent observers exist and are not figments of some Plato's cave world? KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

WJM
Establishing the truth of any statement is logic – principle of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. You seem to think empiricism establishes truth; what establishes empiricism as what establishes truth?
What have you got apart from empricism by which I mean: establishing that a phenomenon can be reliably observed by independent observers to establish the truth of the premises to which you apply your logic? Non contradiction et al won't help you establish those premises, and without them you ain't got nuthin'! If I claim, for instance, that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, no amount of logic will tell you whether or not that statement is "objectively true". What WILL give you confidence that the statement is objectively true is consistent data from studies carried out by independent observers.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Let's look at your original question, EL:
If it is possible – and I agree it is – to be so certain one is right that counter arguments appear ludicrous, even though to others they might seem to have merit, then do you have an objective methodology by which one can figure out whether or not one is in that grip of such a state? In other words, if I find myself convinced of a position, and that the rebuttals offered to that position are fallacious, how do I set about finding out whether the position I am convinced by is indeed correct and the rebuttals are indeed fallacious, or, alternatively, that I am so self-delueded that I am simply unable to see the force of the counterargument?
The way you do this is the use of logic and sensory input built upon a foundation that identifies/founds logic and sensory input as the basis of making objectively true statements by which one can compare their views/beliefs and assess their coherence along with the expectation that one can modify their views according to a proper realization that their current views are erroneous. Regardless of how one verifies the accuracy of their measuring device/system, one must assume they can verify, and that there is a way to objectively verify it. If your worldview contains no foundation for such an expectation, and in fact insists that no such expectation is logically warranted from your worldview beliefs, then the first order of business is to get your worldview beliefs changed to accommodate the existence of a capacity to deliberately arbit objectively true statements and install them over erroneous views. If one's view is incompatible with the existence of objectively true statements and an available means to verify or disqualify statements as such, then one's view is incompatible with any argument that someone else's view or belief is "incorrect". Without logic postulated as an objectively valid means of arbiting true statments, no meaningful argument can even begin. Without postulating that we have the sensory capacity to feed relevant information about objectively existent things to our minds, then we have nothing reliable or available to work with and we get some form of solipsism. That is what I am talking about when I made the commment:
What is appalling is those that actually believe they are serving a good purpose while denying that any sort of objectively true “good purpose” exists; they cannot complete the rational connection that if their belief is true, the only “good purpose” they can possibly be serving is their own selfish, subjective, personal desire.
What "good purpose" are you serving if "good" is subjective? You can only be serving your own personal, subjective purpose. How can "good" be identified in any meaningful way if there is no presumed objective means by which "good" is established in the first place? Unless good is considered an objective commodity we have some capacity to sense (via conscience), no amount of logic or feeling can parse a correct good from an incorrect good because there would be no such thing as an incorrect good, any more than there is an incorrect personal preference or feeling. The terms "right" and "wrong" mean this very thing - that something is objectively right, and objectively wrong - otherwise, the terms are euphemisms for personal preference. We only have two complementary means of identifying and validating true statements from false, right from wrong, corrrect from incorrect; logic, which identifies and structures the nature of the comparison and the rules for comparing, inferences, deductions and conclusions; and sensory capacity, which brings information from the objective world into the mind about that which is going to be identified, categorized and and evaluated. Subjective feelings and preferences are incompatible with the idea that they can be tested or arbited for correctness & incorrectness. I cannot say that it is true that you consider adultery wrong whether you agree with me or not; I can only say that it is wrong whether you agree with me or not. Arguing with others that adultery is wrong, when they disagree with you, is a de facto admission that you hold it to be objectively wrong, that it can be correctly arbited to be objectively wrong, and that those who disagree are objectively wrong and should impose the correct view onto their biological substate. otherwise, it makes no sense to argue - unless you're just trying to manipulate others to agree with you for your own purposes.William J Murray_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

EL said:
OK, let’s assume that. Now, tell me what method you use to discern objectively true statements from false.
A combination of logic and sensory input. (With caveats - for instance, I consider logic ultimately a sensory capacity; we recognize/discover logical principles in a manner consistent with sensory discovery; some true statements are discerned with other mental senses, like conscience and mathematics, which IMO refer to objectively existent mental commodities.)William J Murray_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

EL, the very first premises are the first principles of right reason and linked self-evident plumbline truths. Also, on that side, validity is separate from soundness. Where, necessary incoherence thus self-falsification of not_X entails truth of X. On the inductive side, cogency is tied to the truth of premises supporting the likelihood of truth of conclusions. Truth of premises then addresses accuracy of reference (thus also coherence) with reality. Where, there are many reasons to accept core premises such as that we can accurately perceive many things in the real world, we are responsible and reasoning creatures who can and do know certain things, that self referential incoherence is a sign of falsehood . . . which includes any worldview that entails general delusion -- and more. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

EL said:
Establishing the truth of the premises is antecedent to core logic.
Establishing the truth of any statement is logic - principle of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. You seem to think empiricism establishes truth; what establishes empiricism as what establishes truth? Why should we think that repeatability and cross-checking results increases the chances of a ruler's accuracy? Without logic, there is no reason to think so. I can as easily think that screaming at a ruler and threatening to melt it down will give me the best chance that the ruler is accurate if I don't have to vet any of my expectations by applying logic. Your process of vetting the ruler gains you absolutely nothing with regards to my argument. You must assume that you have some means by which to find objectively true statements regardless of what your methodology is to vet the accuracy of your statements; that's the whole point. You have agreed to my entire argument with these words:
I’m not disputing that to verify something we have to make the assumption that it can be verified.
We must assume we have the mental/sensory capacity to recognize, verify and install objective facts/truths in order to make any claims whatsoever about anything presumed objective in nature (reminder of definition: existent whether we believe it or not; true whether we agree or not).William J Murray_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

EL, core logic is antecedent to inductive reasoning. KF
Establishing the truth of the premises is antecedent to core logic. If you can't establish the truth of the premises how can you know your conclusion is correct, however impeccable the logic? That is why I am saying that the only way to establish that something is "objectively true" is to establish that it remains true for independent observers. There will always be some measurement error, but we can be much more confident that something that many people can independently confirm, under controlled conditions, than of something that they can't. That's why, to turn back to the OP, Randi's challenge is not "confirmation bias" but the reverse. His methodology is the controlled, independently conducted trial. If such a design is "biased" it is only "biased" against finding effects that cannot be replicated. Which is fine. Perhaps some phenomena don't play by the rules. But in that case, we can't detect them by scientific methodology.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Axel, yes, the Plato's world type argument invites an infinite regress of challenges. That's why a sensible person will accept that any claim of general delusion is self undermining and will start afresh on better premises. And selective hyperskepticism is little better than self serving dismissive special pleading by infinite objections beyond reason. Hence, elevatorgate. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Sounds like potentially infinite regress!Axel_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

EL, core logic is antecedent to inductive reasoning. KFkairosfocus_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

WJM:
Now, you are refusing that assumption. Fine. Let’s assume that the supposed objective arbiter of length is a ruler that you have run multiple direct and comparative tests (as you have described) on. That entire process depends on the same kind of essential assumptions I originally outlined, just pushed back a level or two, related to relying on senses and mental capacity assumed to refer to objective commodities, only it involves the other devices, materials, and thought processes used to “validate” the objective capacity of the ruler. At some final (or original) point, one must make assumptions about capacity to verify the objective nature of a thing, or else they have nothing at all to stand on; as kf points out repeatedly, one must make sure those foundational assumptions are not self-defeating or self-negating and actually provide for one’s later conclusions.
I'm not disputing that to verify something we have to make the assumption that it can be verified. What I'm asking you is how you do it? My method is the standard empirical method. But you appear to reject that. Or have I misunderstood?Elizabeth Liddle_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

WJM:
Monitoring the correctness of ones thought and changing it fundamentally requires there to be “correct” and “incorrect” thoughts, and requires one have the capacity to change ones thoughts on account of their “correctness” and “incorrectness”. Otherwise, all we are doing here is flinging feces at each other. In order for either of our arguments to be “true” in anything other than the most trivial sense (“true statement because physics compels me to think it is”), then the assumptions I have listed must be assumed. At some point in our line of evidence and reasoning, we must assume we have the independent, unilateral capacity to discern objectively true statements from false and impose those truths top-down on our biological substrate.
OK, let's assume that. Now, tell me what method you use to discern objectively true statements from false.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

WJM:
If there is no means by which we can deliberately, objectively determine error in our own thoughts, why are you even bothering to ask questions, and why would you attempt to change my views?
I think there is a method. And apparently you do too. I'm asking you what your method is.
Even as you say “But I think there are dragons lurking in your passive-voiced clauses”, you are subscribing to the very assumptions I have listed that you must make. Do you mean that I have errors (dragons) in my thinking? On what basis would you call them errors, if not according to some assumed arbiter of correct and incorrect thinking?
I think your use of the passive voice hides assumptions you believe you are not making. That is why I asked you to explain how an "arbiter" could be "held" (by someone, presumably) to be an objective measure of length. Who decides?
Or, if you do not assume such an objective arbiter (logic), all you can be doing is trying to subjectively change my mind to simply be in line with your own subjctive views. Why bother trying to change the leaf of a fig tree to look like the leaf of a maple tree? They’re just thoughts produced by physics with no arbiter of intrinsic “correctness”.
I am not denying there is such an arbiter. I'm asking you what method you use to find out what it is, and to use it.
It’s like you’re trying to argue that you are not assuming a ruler to be an objective arbiter of length, and your means of making your argument is pulling out the same ruler to make a measurement.
No, I'm not arguing any such thing. I'm simply trying to get you to say how you actually evaluate whether something is objectively true. So far all you have told me is that if the claim is about the length of a plank I should use a measure "held to be" (by person or persons unknown) to be an "objective arbiter of length". I can tell you, as a scientist, how I would establish an "objective arbiter of length" and the method is empirical - if the same instrument gives the same value for all observers, we can say it is "objective". If the same instrument gives values that depend on the person doing the measuring, then we say it is "subjective". But you seem to have some other definition, and I'm trying to get you to articulate what it is.
You have nothing to work with but the assumption that you have some means of objectively arbiting the validity of my argument and your own, and the top-down capacity to make such an assessment and impose it on your biology.
Well, it would be helpful if you would answer my questions!Elizabeth Liddle_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply