Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'd want to examine the dragon. Blood and tissue samples, DNA tests, xrays...It would take quite some time with a large team of experts in umpteen various fields.
That's not what I asked. Of course, I assume you would vet those "experts" and pour over their data tables and arguments? Or would you just believe the second hand reports? How much skepticism would you apply? At what point does it become exccessive?
A picture? No, but personal experience certainly would convince me. The analogy fails, though, because you deny without knowledge what I affirm through knowledge. You accept a picture of the world in which your personal experiences are untrustworthy, but the conclusions of "experts" you never meet based on what they have experienced hold greater value. Physical facts are always mediated through consciousness, and yet you seem to accept philosophies that render the mind epiphenomenal and irrelevant.
You asked what I meant by physical evidence. I told you.
Yeah. I'd want them all to be skeptics. I'd want all of them to absolutely convinced that dragons have never and do not now exist.
To the results of their tests? More than you could imagine. I'd want it all peer reviewed. And then I'd want the peer reviews reviewed. I'd offer a huge cash reward to anyone who could prove it wasn't a dragon.
So up close and personal will do it? I guess you're not as skeptical as I am.
As I said, I can't help you with any of that.
I asked what you meant by physical, and you attempted to define it ostensively as if the naive impression of physical is sufficient. It's not, so what does physical mean?
Didn't ask about them, I asked about you. Would you have to touch the dragon with your own hands before you believe it? Or would you personally vet all of the experts not only for competence but for honesty? How much skepticism is enough skepticism?
So you're putting your trust into others reports? How do you confirm you're not being conned?
You seem to believe that other people are more trustworthy than your own experience, which is quite humorous to me considering you have to trust yourself to identify who to trust. And I don't really see being skeptical as a stand-alone virtue, though I have engaged in greater skepticism than you apply. Especially since you seem incalcitrant to apply your skepticism to your metaphysical commitments.
Given your track record, I'd prefer you not try to help me.
.. provided they are onjectively testable in principle.
Metaphysical assumptions themselves, never get tested in science .. they can be used as a means to an end but that 'end' doesn't justify what always was an untestable assumption.
Scientists are human .. humans tend to believe in things .. scientists are usually capable of accepting undistinguished assumptions as being untestable beliefs when shown that .. and then they are, generally speaking, willing to shelve them and get on with science business .. aka: "Shut up and Calculate!"
A philosophy of science that permits science to proceed, is the minimalist position.
As far as Genesis and the geology of the Earth, I went from if it's in the Bible it's Truth not to be questioned to that's not what I'm seeing with my own eyes. It's what I was seeing that opened the door to questioning my beliefs.
Consistent with Physics.
Objectively consistent; independently replicable results by different means, consistent with already established Physics.
'Trusting' experts is about seeking their viewpoints to make independent assessments about consistency, objectivity and current collectively known mainstream physics. No one scientist knows it all too, y'know(?)
Testability is certainly a consideration, but metaphysical positions are necessarily going to be underdetermined. But all of science is informed by metaphysical frameworks that are operated under.
Sure, but science isn't without metaphysical assumptions.
That's an unrealistic ideal, since science is not just about crunching numbers but drawing conclusions from those numbers. There is and always will be a non-empiric component of science and denying that does a disservice to science by enshrining metaphysical positions.
I agree with both, but as it stands now evidence that contradicts the materialist account of mind is ignored because of metaphysical baggage attached. As an example, the Libet experiments are always presented in a deceptive manner where the first half of the experiment is focused on and the second half is ignored despite being the more interesting results. Evidence that mind is not identical to brain either by type, token, or functional unit is ignored because of recalcitrance to give up causal closure of the physical. And I suspect at least part of that recalcitrance is because there isn't a dualist or idealist philosophy of mind that fits comfortably with naturalist metaphysics.
That's a circular definition and renders it meaningless. What physics does it need to be consistent with? Current physics, or some hypothetical future physics that no one knows what it will look like?
Current physics is almost certainly false, and no one knows what the future of physics hold. And science doesn't deal in "objective" it deals in consensus agreements.
Of course, my point was that skeptics are often arbitrary with their skepticism and only apply it to things they don't believe to begin with. Rarely does anyone engage with Cartesian skepticism and try to establish their beliefs from first principles. It's easy to be skeptical about things you don't find credible, and is rather lazy.
Examples are the best way I can explain what I'd want.
I'd want to be there as the tests are being done.
They'd be checking each others results. We'd all be looking for replication of results. Peer reviews. And reviews of those peer reviews.
That will vary from person to person. But the more people that you have involved in the investigation the more reliable will be the results. There comes a time when denial of the findings is not possible.
See above.
This is fun, isn't it. I'm enjoying it. But I have to meet that friend of mine soon.
See above again for the means of verifying the results.
It's definitely a virtue. I see too many examples of people who could only be described as gullible.
Outstanding. Try to maintain that.
Oh, you won't believe how skeptical I am of most things. Including that which I have decided is true. Being proved wrong should be welcomed.
Roger that.
Ostensive definition only works if the commonality is implicitly understood. And I didn't ask what you'd want, I asked how you define "physical"
So every scientific study you believe you were there while the tests were being run?
How would you know that they aren't just saying they are, and that they continue with the lie due to peer pressure?
There's always ways to be skeptical.
You as well.
So you have no way of confirming that the experts you trust are, in fact, experts and not simply great BS artists?
Sure.
And again, the question of honesty and other issues crop up.
Not for its own sake, otherwise it would be virtuous to take solipsism as a serious threat to knowledge.
It's served its purpose, making it clear to me that the conjecture-falsification model that science uses is woefully inadequate for establishing truth. Munchaussen comes for all who are truly skeptical.
In some things, though it's not exactly possible to live as if everything is subject to doubt.
*hat tip*
Again, as we're talking about investigating whether a dragon exists, examples would be the best way of explaining to you what physical tests would be required.
No. I provisionally accept them until I have reason not to. A study that contradicts the original for example. This is actually how you do it as well.
There comes a point where a conspiracy has to be excluded. Don't forget, we are hiring people who were skeptical in the first place.
There are plenty of ways. Surely you don't want to me to explain..?
The more that you have, the less are the chances. Don't forget they don't believe the dragon exists before they start
Let's keep it to dragons, shall we? Now, I've got a cold beer with my name on it waiting for me.
We're not talking about investigating the existence of a dragon, and it's rather dishonest of you to stand on that. I asked you what you mean by physical, not what type of evidence you'd want for an ordinary existential claim.
That's not relevant to my question, only your presence or non-presence in them. Whether your acceptance is provisional or not, the salient fact is whether or not you personally verify the results of the study or if you take others word for it.
And how do you determine that point? Isn't skepticism a virtue, meaning you should doubt everything?
Enlighten me, how do you check the expertise without having some expertise of your own to sort the BS artists? Who do you put your trust in?
Seems an unnecessary requirement.
Let's not pretend we're not speaking of dragons as an analogue. Though given your track record for intellectual honesty, itdoesn't surprise me you want to keep pretending the inapt analogue is the real question we're discussing and not deeper issues.
www.christianforums.com
Yes, we are. And the physical tests to be used to verify its existence. Tests that will give verifiable and repeatable results.
I personally accept the results that those who I trust (see previous posts about this) have verified. Gee, you're making this a lot more complicated than it actually is.
I do. But it's tiresome to keep prefacing everything with 'As far as I know, from the evidence available so far...'etc etc
See previous posts.
Maybe this is where your problem lies. You don't want people trying to prove something that they want to be proved. You want people to disprove it. It's what most scientists do. Look for faults in existing theories.
Be careful please...I'm giving you a lot of leeway here.
