Atheism's Burden of Proof

[bhsmte]

You literally just said that people only claim that science doesn't know everything so that they can comfort themselves. Replying to what you actually said is now a crude strawman? Seriously, don't make stupid generalizations if you don't want to be called on them.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. Did I state that science has all the answers? I don't believe I did and in fact, I stated science was not perfect, but it produced reliable results and corrected errors over time, which I see as a sign of strength.

The statement I made, was my impression of those on this site, that respond to another talking about the reliability of science, by coming back with; "but, science doesn't know this".

When any process produces reliable results backed by evidence, has zero to do with what it can't show. Those who need to point out what is not known, when critiquing science, are likely trying to protect an emotionally driven belief, IMO.

It would be the equivalent of myself being an eye witness to a murder and actually video taping the murder with my phone and testifying about the same in court. It just so happens, the accused murderer is accused of killing two people, but I only had video tape on the one and the defense counsel trying to discredit my testimony and evidence on what I did video tape, because I didn't witness and video tape the other murder.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You literally just said that people only claim that science doesn't know everything so that they can comfort themselves. Replying to what you actually said is now a crude strawman? Seriously, don't make stupid generalizations if you don't want to be called on them.

I know exactly what he meant.

'Science doesn't know everything' is the motto of every person who wants to shield their beliefs from scrutiny. While the statement is true, it is used to justify belief in anything from crystal healing to chakras to all sorts of religious mythology. As if not knowing everything is carte blanche for anything being possible.

 

[bhsmte]

How high does one need to build a ladder in order to enter into Heaven? There's one for ya.

What heaven?

Can you demonstrate how high up it is, so I can give you an answer on the ladder?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

An analogy -

Suppose there is a mason jar full of dice. Regular, six-sided casino dice. We are both taxed with guessing how many dice are in the jar.

I guess sixty five.

You guess a hundred and eighteen quadrillion.

Are both of our guesses equally valid?

Of course not. While neither of us knows the actual number of dice in the jar, we still know something about the nature of dice and something about the nature of jars, such that not all answers are going to be weighted the same.

That's what I hear every time someone makes the 'science doesn't know everything' argument.......that is, right after I hear myself say, 'So what?'.

 

[Silmarien]

When any process produces reliable results backed by evidence, has zero to do with what it can't show. Those who need to point out what is not known, when critiquing science, are likely trying to protect an emotionally driven belief, IMO.

Nice ad hominem.

I know exactly what he meant.

'Science doesn't know everything' is the motto of every person who wants to shield their beliefs from scrutiny. While the statement is true, ii is used to justify belief in anything from crystal healing to chakras to all sorts of religious mythology. As if not knowing everything is carte blanche for anything being possible.

Another nice ad hominem.

You guys are really killing it with the logical reasoning today.

Seriously, the whole thread has been about philosophy of science, mathematical platonism, and related topics, and now we're pointing out that there's a boundary line between the empirical sciences and philosophy because we're into crystal healing?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Another nice ad hominem.

You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, the whole thread has been about philosophy of science, mathematical platonism, and related topics, and now we're pointing out that there's a boundary line between the empirical sciences and philosophy because we're into crystal healing?

I brought up crystal healing as an example of something people hold to when attempting to shield their beliefs from scrutiny. I was not ascribing it to anyone in particular.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is there an objective answer to that question?

Yes. The answer is: more than 666 rungs. (...and yes, that is an attempt at cheap humor on my part.)

 

[Silmarien]

You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Would you like a lesson in Latin? If you're going to make snarky asides about people having emotional motives driving their arguments, that's a personal attack.

I brought up crystal healing as an example of something people hold to when attempting to shield their beliefs from scrutiny. I was not ascribing it to anyone in particular.

So you're bringing stuff up that's completely irrelevant. That's much better.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know exactly what he meant.

'Science doesn't know everything' is the motto of every person who wants to shield their beliefs from scrutiny. While the statement is true, ii is used to justify belief in anything from crystal healing to chakras to all sorts of religious mythology. As if not knowing everything is carte blanche for anything being possible.

I don't think it's a shield for Eugenie C. Scott.

 

[bhsmte]

Would you like a lesson in Latin? If you're going to make snarky asides about people having emotional motives driving their arguments, that's a personal attack.



So you're bringing stuff up that's completely irrelevant. That's much better.

On your last point, that looks and feels like a bit of projection.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes. The answer is: more than 666 rungs. (...and yes, that is an attempt at cheap humor on my part.)

Well alright then.

 

[Silmarien]

On your last point, that looks and feels like a bit of projection.

If I'm projecting annoyance at the constant anti-intellectualism, so be it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Would you like a lesson in Latin? If you're going to make snarky asides about people having emotional motives driving their arguments, that's a personal attack.

Oh I see. You don't mean 'ad hominem fallacy', just regular ol 'ad hominem'.

You're still wrong.

There is no 'attack' in pointing out emotional motives. You can still be wrong in your accusation of course, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem.

So you're bringing stuff up that's completely irrelevant.

No, and I just explained exactly why it's entirely relevant to my point.

 

[Silmarien]

Oh I see. You don't mean 'ad hominem fallacy', just regular ol 'ad hominem'.

You're still wrong.

There is no 'attack' in pointing out emotional motives. You can still be wrong in your accusation of course, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem attack addresses the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. Making snarky comments about personal motives is by definition ad hominem.

Of course, you could make the argument that this isn't a debate so there are no logical fallacies at all, but then people would need to stop whining about straw men whenever they don't like what's being said.

No, and I just explained exactly why it's entirely relevant to my point.

How is it relevant to epistemology and metaphysics? That is what has been under attack throughout this thread. What belief are people interested in metaphysics trying to shield?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yes, it does. An ad hominem attack addresses the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. Making snarky comments about personal motives is by definition ad hominem.

What argument?

I'm not convinced there is one. The only time someone invokes 'science doesn't know everything' as a defense is precisely when their beliefs are in danger of scrutiny. I can't come to any other conclusion except that they are avoiding having to make an argument in the first place. Do I just assume they must have some other, loftier reasoning that they're not sharing? I can only go by what people say and how they behave.

Of course, you could make the argument that this isn't a debate so there are no logical fallacies at all, but then people would need to stop whining about straw men whenever they don't like what's being said.

No, I wouldn't say that. Fallacies are relevant to any kind of reasoned discourse.

How is it relevant to epistemology and metaphysics?

How is the means by which we reliably glean and retain and replicate information relevant to epistemology?

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what epistemology is, so...pretty relevant, I would say.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not convinced there is one. The only time someone invokes 'science doesn't know everything' as a defense is precisely when their beliefs are in danger of scrutiny. I can't come to any other conclusion except that they are avoiding having to make an argument in the first place. Do I just assume they must have some other, loftier reasoning that they're not sharing? I can only go by what people say and how they behave.

We've been talking about scientific realism, mathematical realism, and the various forms of scientific anti-realism, including instrumentalism and historicist accounts. In this context, the fact that science doesn't know everything is relevant specifically because the discussion is on what the nature of scientific knowledge even is in the first place and whether or not it's telling us anything genuinely true about the nature of reality. This all began because several of the local atheists threw a fit over the fact that a professional mathematician in the thread was a platonist. There are arguments for all of the positions involved--what has always been at stake in this thread is not whether or not arguments exist but whether the question is meaningful in the first place. The general atheistic view on the issue here seems to be, "If it's not science, it's not worth talking about."

If you're not interested in figuring out what's going on in a thread to begin with, walking in to whine about religion and healing crystals is not particularly helpful.

 

[bhsmte]

If I'm projecting annoyance at the constant anti-intellectualism, so be it.

LOL

 

[2PhiloVoid]

...How is the means by which we reliably glean and retain and replicate information relevant to epistemology?

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what epistemology is, so...pretty relevant, I would say.

...see @KCofNC, philosophy is relevant, unless you disagree and feel like arguing the point with @Eight Foot Manchild.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

We've been talking about scientific realism, mathematical realism, and the various forms of scientific anti-realism, including instrumentalism and historicist accounts. In this context, the fact that science doesn't know everything is relevant specifically because the discussion is on what the nature of scientific knowledge even is in the first place and whether or not it's telling us anything genuinely true about the nature of reality. This all began because several of the local atheists threw a fit over the fact that a professional mathematician in the thread was a platonist. There are arguments for all of the positions involved--what has always been at stake in this thread is not whether or not arguments exist but whether the question is meaningful in the first place.

Yeah. I've been following since page 1. I'm allowed to address specific smaller points within the larger scope of the discussion. That's a thing people do sometimes.

Thanks for the recap, though. I don't know how to read, you see.

If you're not interested in figuring out what's going on in a thread to begin with, walking in to whine about religion and healing crystals is not particularly helpful.

Hey, cool it with the 'ad hominems', buddy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah. I've been following since page 1. I'm allowed to address specific smaller points within the larger scope of the discussion. That's a thing people do sometimes.

Thanks for the recap, though. I don't know how to read, you see.

Hey, cool it with the 'ad hominems', buddy.

Do you usually address women with "buddy"?