Kylie's Pool Challenge

[J_B_]

I see your point, but even if we do not have that absolute knowledge, we must still conclude that the third person's belief that the documentation must be correct is a flawed conclusion.

I think the well is poisoned, but if you want to explain why you think that, please do.

 

[Kylie]

I think the well is poisoned, but if you want to explain why you think that, please do.

Okay, let's revisit the OP but remove that absolute knowledge.

Let's say someone came across a pool table and the balls were scattered across the surface of the table in a way that could be the result of someone breaking. This person wrote down a statement claiming that the no one had actually broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a second person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The second person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"​

The second person (who corresponds to the third person in the OP) has reached a flawed conclusion because there are other possible explanations for the position of the balls. Unless they have demonstrated that the position is not possible to reach from breaking, the idea that someone had actually broken should not be discounted.

 

[J_B_]

Okay, let's revisit the OP but remove that absolute knowledge.

Let's say someone came across a pool table and the balls were scattered across the surface of the table in a way that could be the result of someone breaking. This person wrote down a statement claiming that the no one had actually broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a second person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The second person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"​

The second person (who corresponds to the third person in the OP) has reached a flawed conclusion because there are other possible explanations for the position of the balls. Unless they have demonstrated that the position is not possible to reach from breaking, the idea that someone had actually broken should not be discounted.

I think you still have a bias in the way you've set this up.

Do you play pool? I'm terrible, but I have set up practice shots, i.e. laying out the balls in specific patterns just as the documentation in your scenario claims. Point is, it's not an absurd conclusion.

Therefore, the conclusion is not flawed. I think what you're actually objecting to is the method used to arrive at that conclusion. But if there is no evidence specific to the mechanics causing the layout, the conclusion must be made by means other than a scientific method. Maybe a legal method or a historical method is more appropriate here.

You're implying the 3rd person never considered the possibility the layout was achieved with a break. If that is the case, you could probably argue they're a bad lawyer or a bad historian. They're gonna lose eventually. In this case, however, they could well win the case. Why? Because what evidence do you have to refute them?

I think it's a mistake to assume their method is flawed without first specifying their method, whether they've adhered to it, and the intended scope of that method. I'm pretty sure you're attacking a 'faith in the Bible' thing of some sort here, but you've cast it as an 'acceptance of documentation' scenario. In truth, that's what 99% of the world is asked to accept with respect to science. Very few ever operate a deep space telescope or a collider or a bacteria incubator or ... We just read about it. If documentation is never reliable ...

 

[Kylie]

I think you still have a bias in the way you've set this up.

Do you play pool? I'm terrible, but I have set up practice shots, i.e. laying out the balls in specific patterns just as the documentation in your scenario claims. Point is, it's not an absurd conclusion.

Therefore, the conclusion is not flawed. I think what you're actually objecting to is the method used to arrive at that conclusion. But if there is no evidence specific to the mechanics causing the layout, the conclusion must be made by means other than a scientific method. Maybe a legal method or a historical method is more appropriate here.

I think you misunderstand the question.

I am not asking, "Is it rational to conclude that the balls were placed there?"

I am asking, "Is it rational to conclude that the balls could only have come to those locations by being placed there?"

And the answer is no, it is not rational to conclude that deliberate placement is the ONLY way the balls could come to that position.

Thus, if a person says, "Deliberate placement is the only explanation," then that person is being irrational.

You're implying the 3rd person never considered the possibility the layout was achieved with a break. If that is the case, you could probably argue they're a bad lawyer or a bad historian. They're gonna lose eventually. In this case, however, they could well win the case. Why? Because what evidence do you have to refute them?

It's not a question about whether I have evidence to refute their claims that the balls were deliberately placed. They could well have been. The issue is that they have claimed that deliberate placement is the only possible explanation - a conclusion that they reached only because they found something written that made the claim, and they concluded that it must be correct. Their conclusion is not the only possible explanation, hence their claim that it is is a flawed one.

I think it's a mistake to assume their method is flawed without first specifying their method, whether they've adhered to it, and the intended scope of that method. I'm pretty sure you're attacking a 'faith in the Bible' thing of some sort here, but you've cast it as an 'acceptance of documentation' scenario.

It was an examination of AV's position of "The Bible says it, that settles it", yes. We should not accept some piece of documentation if the only thing that supports the documentation is the documentation itself.

In truth, that's what 99% of the world is asked to accept with respect to science. Very few ever operate a deep space telescope or a collider or a bacteria incubator or ... We just read about it. If documentation is never reliable ...

The difference is that scientists go through peer review, and their methods are available for all to examine. That is not the case with the documentation in my example.

 

[J_B_]

I think you misunderstand the question.

I understand the question.

I am asking, "Is it rational to conclude that the balls could only have come to those locations by being placed there?"

And the answer is no, it is not rational to conclude that deliberate placement is the ONLY way the balls could come to that position.

I agree with you, but you're not acknowledging my point. All that does is make the person a bad lawyer; it doesn't mean they lose the case. Why? Because they're arguing the stronger case and you're arguing the weaker case.

I'm suggesting the person may well realize deliberate placement is not the only explanation, but as this is a legal case, they could be using rhetoric in saying it is the only valid explanation. I don't know you well, but to me it seems those in this forum with a singular scientific mindset often miss the uses of rhetoric.

Of course it's your scenario, so if you state the person is not using rhetoric and honestly believes deliberate placement is the only possibility ... well ... again, all that does is make him a bad lawyer. It doesn't mean he loses.

It was an examination of AV's position of "The Bible says it, that settles it", yes.

I don't choose to make arguments the way AV does.

We should not accept some piece of documentation if the only thing that supports the documentation is the documentation itself.

That is not the way legal or historical methods work. If you're going to deny those are the methods in play, then please state what method is in play.

The difference is that scientists go through peer review, and their methods are available for all to examine. That is not the case with the documentation in my example.

The same is true for legal and historical methods. Actually, it's true of most formal religious claims as well, though it may not be true of AV's arguments. If this is just about AV, then I guess I don't have much to say. But I got the impression your OP was more general than that.

 

[Astrid]

I think you misunderstand the question.

I am not asking, "Is it rational to conclude that the balls were placed there?"

I am asking, "Is it rational to conclude that the balls could only have come to those locations by being placed there?"

And the answer is no, it is not rational to conclude that deliberate placement is the ONLY way the balls could come to that position.

Thus, if a person says, "Deliberate placement is the only explanation," then that person is being irrational.



It's not a question about whether I have evidence to refute their claims that the balls were deliberately placed. They could well have been. The issue is that they have claimed that deliberate placement is the only possible explanation - a conclusion that they reached only because they found something written that made the claim, and they concluded that it must be correct. Their conclusion is not the only possible explanation, hence their claim that it is is a flawed one.



It was an examination of AV's position of "The Bible says it, that settles it", yes. We should not accept some piece of documentation if the only thing that supports the documentation is the documentation itself.



The difference is that scientists go through peer review, and their methods are available for all to examine. That is not the case with the documentation in my example.

The big difference is that it is POSSIBLE to check research,
and it gets checked.
Usually there's no way to check the "settles it" but if there is
it comes out that same. No matter what the check finds, it's
still settled.

 

[Kylie]

I understand the question.

Then I don't see how you can get the idea that it's a reasonable conclusion to say that deliberate placement is the only explanation for the balls' location.

I agree with you, but you're not acknowledging my point. All that does is make the person a bad lawyer; it doesn't mean they lose the case. Why? Because they're arguing the stronger case and you're arguing the weaker case.

I'm suggesting the person may well realize deliberate placement is not the only explanation, but as this is a legal case, they could be using rhetoric in saying it is the only valid explanation. I don't know you well, but to me it seems those in this forum with a singular scientific mindset often miss the uses of rhetoric.

Of course it's your scenario, so if you state the person is not using rhetoric and honestly believes deliberate placement is the only possibility ... well ... again, all that does is make him a bad lawyer. It doesn't mean he loses.

Where did all this lawyer stuff come from?

I don't choose to make arguments the way AV does.

I never said you did. I thought I was quite clear that this is an argument against that kind of reasoning. I never said that you were engaging in that kind of reasoning.

That is not the way legal or historical methods work. If you're going to deny those are the methods in play, then please state what method is in play.

Irrelevant. I'm not attempting to describe a history of arguments. I'm using an analogy to show how someone concluding that the Bible's claims must be true when they haven't discounted other explanations is not using a rational argument.

 

[Astrid]

Then I don't see how you can get the idea that it's a reasonable conclusion to say that deliberate placement is the only explanation for the balls' location.



Where did all this lawyer stuff come from?



I never said you did. I thought I was quite clear that this is an argument against that kind of reasoning. I never said that you were engaging in that kind of reasoning.



Irrelevant. I'm not attempting to describe a history of arguments. I'm using an analogy to show how someone concluding that the Bible's claims must be true when they haven't discounted other explanations is not using a rational argument.

Sheesh, so much repetitive hyper over-explication needed for a one-sentence
concept!

Side note

Ever been to Singapore?
I love the way they talk "Singlish"!

It's got to be the most efficient language ever,
leaving out unnecessary words and parts of words too!

 

[J_B_]

I never said you did. I thought I was quite clear that this is an argument against that kind of reasoning. I never said that you were engaging in that kind of reasoning.

I wanted it to be clear I'm not defending AV, but neither will I pile on. I'm only evaluating your scenario and the criticism you're raising. If this is all about AV, I'm going to step aside. If this is a discussion between you and me, it could be fun.

Irrelevant. I'm not attempting to describe a history of arguments. I'm using an analogy to show how someone concluding that the Bible's claims must be true when they haven't discounted other explanations is not using a rational argument.

I've already agreed it's not good practice to ignore reasonable possibilities. If you're happy with that answer, I guess we're done.

But you were very dismissive of documentation, which leaves an impression that this is about more than considering all the possibilities. It leaves the impression this is also about discounting those who make an argument based on documentation. I'm asking you to lay out the method you're using to dismiss that documentation. Is it a process that would be accepted by a peer-reviewed journal on religious texts?

Where did all this lawyer stuff come from?

It was a suggestion. A possible method. You're not going to ignore a possibility are you?

Consider how this would play out in a court room ...

Judge: Prosecution, state your case.

Prosecution: Sorry, I got nothin'. I rest. But I don't like the defense's case. He only considered the possibility for which evidence exists.

Judge: Defense, how could you possibly refute that?

Defense: Yeah, I know. I have written testimony from a witness, but that's all.

Judge: Pfft. Well, if you didn't consider the possibilities the prosecution mentioned, then I can't admit the only existing evidence for this case because it supports your argument. I find in favor of the prosecution.

Defense: Rats, prosecution. You're good. You really ripped me apart on that one.

Sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me.

 

[Kylie]

I wanted it to be clear I'm not defending AV, but neither will I pile on. I'm only evaluating your scenario and the criticism you're raising. If this is all about AV, I'm going to step aside. If this is a discussion between you and me, it could be fun.

The OP was a direct response to AV's belief that the documentation (the Bible) is always right no matter what.

I've already agreed it's not good practice to ignore reasonable possibilities. If you're happy with that answer, I guess we're done.

But you were very dismissive of documentation, which leaves an impression that this is about more than considering all the possibilities. It leaves the impression this is also about discounting those who make an argument based on documentation. I'm asking you to lay out the method you're using to dismiss that documentation. Is it a process that would be accepted by a peer-reviewed journal on religious texts?

Let me put it this way. If I came across a text which says the universe was created last Thursday by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'd dismiss it immediately. Sure, there is a piece of documentation that makes a claim, but that in and of itself is nowhere near sufficient to make it plausible.

And I don't think that it makes any difference what the age of the claim is, nor how many people believe it.

It was a suggestion. A possible method. You're not going to ignore a possibility are you?

Consider how this would play out in a court room ...

Judge: Prosecution, state your case.

Prosecution: Sorry, I got nothin'. I rest. But I don't like the defense's case. He only considered the possibility for which evidence exists.

Judge: Defense, how could you possibly refute that?

Defense: Yeah, I know. I have written testimony from a witness, but that's all.

Judge: Pfft. Well, if you didn't consider the possibilities the prosecution mentioned, then I can't admit the only existing evidence for this case because it supports your argument. I find in favor of the prosecution.

Defense: Rats, prosecution. You're good. You really ripped me apart on that one.

Sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me.

Can the defense show that what he has is from a witness? Because he could have scribbled it five minutes ago on a paper towel from the court's toilets. Remember, in my case, the documentation is not guaranteed to be from a witness to the event.

 

[J_B_]

Let me put it this way. If I came across a text which says the universe was created last Thursday by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'd dismiss it immediately. Sure, there is a piece of documentation that makes a claim, but that in and of itself is nowhere near sufficient to make it plausible.

I'll do you one better. I wouldn't have believed the Bible if I had come across it randomly.

But I'm not interested in a list of documents you accept and reject. I'm interested in your method. How do you decide what to accept and reject? I'm also interested how that compares to the process of various peer-reviewed fields.

Can the defense show that what he has is from a witness? Because he could have scribbled it five minutes ago on a paper towel from the court's toilets. Remember, in my case, the documentation is not guaranteed to be from a witness to the event.

Of course the credibility of the witness is important. What does credibility mean to you?

 

[J_B_]

The OP was a direct response to AV's belief that the documentation (the Bible) is always right no matter what.

Then if @AV1611VET returns to answer you further, I'll step aside.

 

[Kylie]

I'll do you one better. I wouldn't have believed the Bible if I had come across it randomly.

But I'm not interested in a list of documents you accept and reject. I'm interested in your method. How do you decide what to accept and reject? I'm also interested how that compares to the process of various peer-reviewed fields.

What doies the evidence support? How does the claim withstand testing? Is there a simpler solution that explains everything just as well?

Of course the credibility of the witness is important. What does credibility mean to you?

Credibility means how justified it is to accept the claim.

My claim that I had a sandwich for lunch yesterday is a credible claim because it's is reasonable to believe that I had lunch yesterday and it is also reasonable to believe that a sandwich is a common lunchtime food.

The claim that I skydived in the Alps yesterday is a less credible claim, since I live in Australia and our travel is quite restricted at the moment, and even if it were true, I would be unlikely to have returned home by this time.

 

[J_B_]

What doies the evidence support? How does the claim withstand testing? Is there a simpler solution that explains everything just as well?

Credibility means how justified it is to accept the claim.

My claim that I had a sandwich for lunch yesterday is a credible claim because it's is reasonable to believe that I had lunch yesterday and it is also reasonable to believe that a sandwich is a common lunchtime food.

The claim that I skydived in the Alps yesterday is a less credible claim, since I live in Australia and our travel is quite restricted at the moment, and even if it were true, I would be unlikely to have returned home by this time.

Thanks, that's a start. Still, I don't see anything in this I could apply to the pool scenario to explain why you would reject the document or why you would consider the witness unreliable. I have your statement that a document is no evidence in and of itself, but I'm still left asking: Why? It leaves you incredulous. Why? What is so extraordinary about someone claiming the table was set? Why only the 2 possibilities? Isn't there also a 3rd possibility an accident of some sort caused the layout (rather than an intentional break)? And maybe a 4th possibility? Where do we stop?

In formal debate, such a thing is not allowed. It's not considered a valid argument that you're creative enough to come up with additional possibilities, and then dismiss a claim simply because other possibilities exist. You need to present a criticism that can be demonstrably answered with additional data.

You're close to doing that with the Alps example. A formal argument is laid out like this:

Kylie: I was skiing in the Alps yesterday (claim).
J.B.: What do you have to support that?
Kylie: I have a photo (data) of myself dressed for skiing standing against a snowy background (warrant).

Note that data is not evidence. Evidence is the combination of data with a warrant. A warrant is a means of connecting the data to the claim. The warrant, then, is that snow and proper equipment are required for skiing. You have demonstrated meeting those requirements, and so have a warrant to connect the data to the claim.

J.B.: That could be the Snowy Mountains, which is easier to reach in a day than the Austrian Alps (rebuttal).

Note the form of the rebuttal. It's not just, "That's too incredible to believe," or some vague, open-ended "show me the evidence". It's a request for data in a form the claimant can answer. A statement has been made that if you can show the location in the photo is not the Snowy Mountains and that it is possible to travel from Austria to Australia in one day, your claim will be accepted.

Kylie: Here is my date-stamped lift ticket with the name of the resort where I was skiing and my date-stamped plane ticket.
J.B.: Those are faked.

Now the objections are getting a bit ridiculous. Why would you go to the trouble of faking those items? It is acceptable to turn the tables on such a rebuttal.

Kylie: Explain why I would fake them ... with data and a warrant, mind you. Or, you could pay to have the tickets analyzed for authenticity.

CF does have a means (rarely utilized) for formal debate. But, for the most part, CF will always, always fail at this point. There is no way to hold people accountable - to make them demonstrate how seriously they mean their rebuttal by putting up capital of some kind.

All you've really got is your own judgement of your opponent's sincerity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If anything was there before what exists of the universe, what was there before exists necessarily, that is, there is necessary existence. It is understandable.

If the universe is everything that exists or existed, then there was no 'before' (it was all 'the universe'), and by your logic, the universe is 'necessary existence'...

 

[Kylie]

Then if @AV1611VET returns to answer you further, I'll step aside.

It's been quite a while since I've seen him around.

 

[pgp_protector]

It's been quite a while since I've seen him around.

Looks like they were online last month "AV1611VET was last seen: Sep 9, 2021"

 

[Kylie]

Thanks, that's a start. Still, I don't see anything in this I could apply to the pool scenario to explain why you would reject the document or why you would consider the witness unreliable. I have your statement that a document is no evidence in and of itself, but I'm still left asking: Why? It leaves you incredulous. Why? What is so extraordinary about someone claiming the table was set? Why only the 2 possibilities? Isn't there also a 3rd possibility an accident of some sort caused the layout (rather than an intentional break)? And maybe a 4th possibility? Where do we stop?

In formal debate, such a thing is not allowed. It's not considered a valid argument that you're creative enough to come up with additional possibilities, and then dismiss a claim simply because other possibilities exist. You need to present a criticism that can be demonstrably answered with additional data.

You're close to doing that with the Alps example. A formal argument is laid out like this:

Kylie: I was skiing in the Alps yesterday (claim).
J.B.: What do you have to support that?
Kylie: I have a photo (data) of myself dressed for skiing standing against a snowy background (warrant).

Note that data is not evidence. Evidence is the combination of data with a warrant. A warrant is a means of connecting the data to the claim. The warrant, then, is that snow and proper equipment are required for skiing. You have demonstrated meeting those requirements, and so have a warrant to connect the data to the claim.

J.B.: That could be the Snowy Mountains, which is easier to reach in a day than the Austrian Alps (rebuttal).

Note the form of the rebuttal. It's not just, "That's too incredible to believe," or some vague, open-ended "show me the evidence". It's a request for data in a form the claimant can answer. A statement has been made that if you can show the location in the photo is not the Snowy Mountains and that it is possible to travel from Austria to Australia in one day, your claim will be accepted.

Kylie: Here is my date-stamped lift ticket with the name of the resort where I was skiing and my date-stamped plane ticket.
J.B.: Those are faked.

Now the objections are getting a bit ridiculous. Why would you go to the trouble of faking those items? It is acceptable to turn the tables on such a rebuttal.

Kylie: Explain why I would fake them ... with data and a warrant, mind you. Or, you could pay to have the tickets analyzed for authenticity.

CF does have a means (rarely utilized) for formal debate. But, for the most part, CF will always, always fail at this point. There is no way to hold people accountable - to make them demonstrate how seriously they mean their rebuttal by putting up capital of some kind.

All you've really got is your own judgement of your opponent's sincerity.

I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle.

This isn't a discussion about what caused the balls to be in the positions that we find them.

It's a discussion about whether we can reasonably say that the documentation MUST be the correct explanation and all other explanations are wrong.

 

[J_B_]

I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle.

This isn't a discussion about what caused the balls to be in the positions that we find them.

It's a discussion about whether we can reasonably say that the documentation MUST be the correct explanation and all other explanations are wrong.

Obviously, I think everything I've said pertains. But I'll grant you we don't seem to be connecting.

I don't think you've given me enough to assess your position or form one of my own - at least not beyond what I've already agreed to. Since it's not working, I'll let you take control of the conversation.

 

[FredVB]

If anything was there before what exists of the universe, what was there before exists necessarily, that is, there is necessary existence. It is understandable.

Not necessarily.

One of the ideas about how the universe is used to be the "Big Crunch" model, which said that the expansion of the universe would one day stop and then the universe would contract and come together in a Big Crunch, like the opposite of the Big Bang. This crunch could then be followed by a new Big Bang, starting the universe over again. Now, as I understand it, this model has fallen out of favour lately, but I'm not here to debate the merits and/or failings of it.

Instead, I'll point out that if some life evolved in the universe after the big crunch/next big bang, then they might say that what came before their big bang existed necessarily. But that would be us. How does your argument fare if Humans exist necessarily? Doesn't that put us as equivalent to God on how necessary we are?

Yeah, the big crunch would not work as elasticity is needed and the whole universe together would be about the least elastic thing ever. But if there was any rebounding there would not be any answer for why there would be that. What would exist before the rebound would be much the same thing, before being reconstituted. That would not be the necessary existence that explains how it is there at all. Nothing of us, or those like us before the universe was reconstituted, would be that necessary existence at all. Understand that what is meant by necessary is not what is necessary for us to exist, it is meaning that there is such existence that just necessarily exists, which cannot be not existing. We don't understand how there is such existence, but there is, or there would be nothing existing. That is mathematically logical.