A Challenge To Anti-Uniformitarianists

[Zosimus]

While this is a distinction, it misses the point of the argument. The reason I stop at red lights is not "the law tells me to". It's "I don't want to end up being scraped off the pavement by an EMT". A more apt replacement would perhaps be "You know your friends are at the base of a mile-high cliff, and you want to go see them; how do you know it would be a bad idea to jump down to see them?" It doesn't matter much for the overall structure of

And you are arriving at this conclusion... how? You are thinking back in your life and saying, "I remember the last time I jumped off a mile-high cliff. Wow, that sure killed me. I'd better not do that again." Obviously not. You do not jump off a cliff because you are afraid. That's the same reason people are reluctant to cross a transparent glass floor forming a bridge some 1,000 feet above sharp rocks. Even though you can see your host standing on the invisible floor and not plunging to his death, this does not prevent the fear that you feel.

Here's another example. You have a headache, and you go to your friend's medicine cabinet. You find some aspirin, but as you are about to take them you notice the expiry date as 31-12-2011. The aspirin looks, feels, and smells normal. You have no past evidence from your life of someone taking expired aspirin and dying. Yet you hesitate. Why? Because the potential gain from taking the aspirin (headache relief) is small compared to the potential loss (serious illness or death). Most sensible people junk the aspirin and look for a new solution to the headache problem.

I don't. Given the evidence, I assume that it is the case until new evidence comes along. Uniformitarianism is an assumption. However, it is a necessary one, as without it, at least as far as I am aware, empiricism becomes useless, and without empiricism, our path to any knowledge of our surroundings and particularly our past falls apart.

Yeah, that's right. It's an assumption. It's the same assumption that leads to people losing their shirts in the stock market or real estate market. In short, if you believe that the past is a good guide to the future, then you shouldn't believe that the past is a good guide to the future!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's another example. You have a headache, and you go to your friend's medicine cabinet. You find some aspirin, but as you are about to take them you notice the expiry date as 31-12-2011. The aspirin looks, feels, and smells normal. You have no past evidence from your life of someone taking expired aspirin and dying. Yet you hesitate. Why? Because the potential gain from taking the aspirin (headache relief) is small compared to the potential loss (serious illness or death). Most sensible people junk the aspirin and look for a new solution to the headache problem.

When I was in college, that was called hedonistic calculus.

Example: Park your car in front of a meter that wants 25¢ an hour. If the fine for parking at an expired meter is 10¢, some people will risk paying the fine, rather than putting a quarter in the meter.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing that you said had anything to do my argument in the slightest. It was incoherent rambling.

When I say, "Let's say for the sake of argument that things are as you say..." Then off-topic comments such as "God can place fake evidence, so nyah nyah nyah" are unhelpful.

Why don't you address peoples' posts instead of running away from them.