tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7895642444875317653..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: "Atheism a faith position too" - best shot?Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80010897561214625292011-10-31T14:52:18.876+00:002011-10-31T14:52:18.876+00:00In this vein, the fundamentalist poses a special p...In this vein, the fundamentalist poses a special problem. They reject science, live in caves, shun modern medicine, read only their scripture, etc. <br /><br />If we grant that 'faith is faith' (that scientific and religious faith are equivalent), we have to allow that the fundamentalist is as consistent as we are.<br /><br />I am content to let this stand. If a person rejects logic and science, then there can be no logical or scientific reasons to refute him. The fundamentalist has simply made a choice and there may be no way to say he is wrong. Some would even praise him for paying such a high price for his faith. I wouldn't, but some might.<br /><br />But even here, I think science has an edge. Sam Harris would say that this guy isn't maximizing human well-being. By rejecting vaccines, nutritional knowledge, etc, he is favoring his beliefs over people, including himself. The caveman could say "Well, I just don't value human well-being as much as you do". To which Sam Harris would say, "I think you do. You are just deluded into thinking that living this way will maximize your well-being via a circuitous and illusory path which pleases your God.Don Severshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14850579300736045535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71266147368650593192011-10-31T14:44:38.394+00:002011-10-31T14:44:38.394+00:00These are good arguments, but are examples of thei...These are good arguments, but are examples of theists fighting to obtain a draw. When fighting science, they consider a tie a win. It's not. <br /><br />Even if religious faith and scientific faith were on a par, science would still win. Here's why. Every religious person has two religions: their religion and science. <br /><br />Thus, the religious person has to explain why they have two worldviews. The naturalist operates fine with just one.<br /><br />Faith, Science, Consistency. Pick two.Don Severshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14850579300736045535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75182392892099168482007-06-04T13:51:00.000+00:002007-06-04T13:51:00.000+00:00"Furthermore, it's at least not entirely implausib..."Furthermore, it's at least not entirely implausible to conclude that there are unknowable properties of this reality."<BR/><BR/>I'd prefer to think it as not-yet-known rather than unknowable, but you're right, that it is only our KNOWLEDGE of reality that changes, and not 'objective' reality itself.<BR/><BR/>But, even so, an 'illusionary' reality (oxymoron) would STILL BE PART of an objective reality.<BR/>---------<BR/><BR/>WILLIAM OF OCCAM:<BR/><BR/>I've changed my mind on that an 'illusionary' reality is just as likely as an 'objective' one.<BR/><BR/>'THIS' UNIVERSE IS REAL:<BR/>-Just this reality.<BR/><BR/>'THIS' UNIVERSE IS ILLUSIONARY:<BR/>-The data of every facet of this universe, including<BR/>-The 'real' reality.<BR/><BR/>I imagine the data of every single movement of every single subatomic particle of the whole timeframe of the universe would be just as complicated as the real McCoy. Therefore, 'this' universe being real is a simpler hypothesis.<BR/>----------------------<BR/><BR/>"Specific properties of reality that are shared by all people and are independent of anyone's subjective experience."<BR/><BR/>But what if everyone else was just as illusionary as everything else?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-27895274120162087962007-05-26T12:35:00.000+00:002007-05-26T12:35:00.000+00:00The point of philosophy is to find out the TRUTH: ...<I>The point of philosophy is to find out the TRUTH: to do that you need to first transcend the concept of 'reality.'</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps, but what is "truth"? Truth is, I think, a much more subtle concept than most people intuitively believe.<BR/><BR/>There is a strong relationship between truth and reality, and I think the story goes a little like this: On the basis of our experiences, we conclude there is a "reality" which is "objective", i.e. reality has specific properties and universals independent of our subjective experience. When we factor in our own experience of hearing other people's statements, we further conclude that there are specific properties of reality that are shared by all people and are independent of <I>anyone's</I> subjective experience.<BR/><BR/>Because we conclude that reality is independent, and because we have discovered previously unknown properties of reality, it becomes plausible to conclude that there are as yet unknown properties of reality. Furthermore, it's at least not entirely implausible to conclude that there are <I>unknowable</I> properties of this reality. Kant's speculations about the <I>noumena</I> becomes at least somewhat intelligible.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind, though, that all of the above is not metaphysical: It follows directly from scientific metaphysics which does not itself make any statements about any kind of "reality".<BR/><BR/>I suspect that philosophers are drawn towards these unknowable statements; as a scientifically minded engineer, I must admit I consider this propensity to be an intellectual vice.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-47323243677067691682007-05-26T03:37:00.000+00:002007-05-26T03:37:00.000+00:00When I think about it, science/logic CAN explain o...When I think about it, science/logic CAN explain other universes. Just not using information that comes from THIS universe.<BR/><BR/>Even if the other universe is random, we can still assign probabilities. (Besides, quantum mechanics stipulate that this world IS probabilistic.)<BR/><BR/>Even if the othe universe is filled with 'brute facts,' humans should be smart enough to generalize ENOUGH to find some kind of connection. The Butterfly Effect is a good example.<BR/><BR/>So, science IS inter-universal. Hm.<BR/><BR/>-----Barefoot Bum:<BR/><BR/>For the reality thing, yeah, you're correct that I used 'subjective' very loosely. And I suppose it wasn't logical of me either to say because I see 'reality' SUBJECTIVELY, 'reality' IS subjective.<BR/><BR/>The point of philosophy is to find out the TRUTH: to do that you need to first transcend the concept of 'reality.' But since we can't tell if reality's real one way or another, how can you transcend it? We can only assume. Oh well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43746768164425113422007-05-24T00:57:00.000+00:002007-05-24T00:57:00.000+00:00Nutcase: You state the case colorfully and perhaps...Nutcase: You state the case colorfully and perhaps a bit imprecisely, but in the main, yes, I think you're correct. <BR/><BR/>The definition of "reality" that follows from the scientific metaphysics I describe above is "that which explains our experience."<BR/><BR/>I would take issue only with this statement:<BR/><BR/><I>Reality is subjective</I><BR/><BR/>"Subjective" is very poorly defined even in the philosophical canon. When it is defined at all, the definitions are all over the place.<BR/><BR/>If we use my own (perhaps idiosyncratic) definitions of "subjective" (minds and properties of minds) and "objective" (everything but minds and their properties), it is the case that reality, by definition, is always justified by an appeal to the subjective. However, for most of us, the most compact explanation for our experiences is the hypothesis that things outside our own minds exist and have properties.<BR/><BR/>Still and all, I think you're correct: there's nothing at all to say whether reality, that which explains our experience, is the "real" reality.<BR/><BR/>But so what?Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11271694244887875982007-05-23T00:20:00.000+00:002007-05-23T00:20:00.000+00:00"It doesn't particularly matter to me whether I'm ..."It doesn't particularly matter to me whether I'm manipulating "real" reality, or "fake" reality to enhance and optimize my experiences. "Fake" pain hurts just as much as "real" pain."<BR/><BR/>So we agree What You Sense Is What You Get, whether you like it or not. All I'm advoking is What You Sense May Not Be 'Real'.<BR/><BR/>Using the two metaphysical premises for science you brought up, a hallucinating person can 'scientifically prove' everything he sees is 'real', even though that surely is wrong. When his pet spider tells him he's actually hallucinating, he gets scared and squashes the spider. (Don't worry, the spider resurrects every 5 days)<BR/><BR/>Of course, this hallucinating guy still has to live in his world of floating monkey heads and spiders whether he likes it or not. WYSIWYG.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, here are my conclusions:<BR/><BR/>1) Reality is subjective<BR/><BR/>2) Science, no matter what 'reality', can only explain THAT 'reality'.<BR/><BR/>3) Most assume what we see is real just because it's simplest, and thinking otherwise is too nerve-wrecking for most.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79653067271661536352007-05-22T18:25:00.000+00:002007-05-22T18:25:00.000+00:00Also, as I noted in Law's latest post, it's really...Also, as I noted in Law's latest post, it's really a distinction without a difference whether our ontology describes the "real" physical universe, or those structures in a demon's brain which it uses to construct our experiences.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't particularly matter to me whether I'm manipulating "real" reality, or "fake" reality to enhance and optimize my experiences. "Fake" pain hurts just as much as "real" pain.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53150487616229930812007-05-22T18:21:00.000+00:002007-05-22T18:21:00.000+00:00Nutcase:Let me expand a little more on the differe...Nutcase:<BR/><BR/>Let me expand a little more on the difference between metaphysical assumptions and scientific hypotheses: Both are—considered in the formal logical sense—premises, not themselved derived, from which we derive complex theorems. For instance "zero is not the successor to any natural number" is a premise of arithmetic; "2+2=4" is a derived theorem.<BR/><BR/>Metaphysical assumptions and scientific hypothesis differ in that metaphysical assumptions are held to be true by definition, whereas scientific hypotheses are provisional; they are "true" or "false" only insofar as they explain experiments or, in phenomenalism, personal experience.<BR/><BR/>Science does have metaphysical assumptions, but the existence of physical reality is not one of them; the existence of physical reality, independent of our minds, is a <I>hypothesis</I> (and a darn successful one) to explain our experience.<BR/><BR/>In a manner of speaking, this hypothesis was "proposed" many hundreds of millions ago by chance mutation, and "tested" (and considerably refined) by natural selection, the differences in reproductive success. It thus appears intuitively to be a fundamental metaphysical assumption because the intuition has been firmly hard-wired in our brains by evolution.<BR/><BR/>The only truly metaphysical assumptions that science requires are these:<BR/><BR/>(i) Our experiences stand in need of explanation<BR/>(2) A more compact explanation is preferable to a less compact explanation<BR/><BR/>Everything else—even the requirement of public repeatability in science (as opposed to personal experience in phenomenalism)—fundamentally rests on these two metaphysical assumptions.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-46144425620849904322007-05-22T04:05:00.000+00:002007-05-22T04:05:00.000+00:00Sorry... I need to clear some stuff up. By 'THE re...Sorry... I need to clear some stuff up. <BR/><BR/>By 'THE reality' I mean the true, only physical universe. By 'MY reality' I mean what I can sense.<BR/><BR/>And in my previous post I focus on the concept of MY reality, since I MAY be a brain in a vat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61681626570777995522007-05-22T04:00:00.000+00:002007-05-22T04:00:00.000+00:00Barefoot Bum:You have a point on that semantics ma...Barefoot Bum:<BR/><BR/>You have a point on that semantics may be messing up what people mean by 'reality.' But here, I mean reality as in the physical universe. By 'this universe' I meant the universe I sense. The two aren't necessarily the same: I could be a simulated AI program or a brain-in-a-vat where what I thought was real science doesn't apply.<BR/><BR/>Strictly, science DOES assume there're uniform, regular scientific laws. Take quantum mechanics and general relativity. Astrophysicists all over are trying to unify the two.<BR/><BR/>And yes, skepticism doesn't mean to REJECT everything. Normal skeptics still go on with their daily lives- abnormal ones end up in a nuthouse.<BR/><BR/>I've also tried my hand at rebutting these arguments Stephen Law brought up. (If you can find them somewhere) Looking back at these rebuttals, I don't really know how good they are.<BR/><BR/>For argument 1: Induction is basically using a finite number of confirming instances to make a hypothesis for an infinite instances. As we know, finite/infinity isn't a lot. Therefore, we have to assume there must be uniformity for induction to work. Is there uniformity? It depends on how general you can get to make things seem uniform. Science is all about uniformity, anyway. <BR/><BR/>For argument 2: Science, admittedly, is only supposed to work for THIS universe if it IS uniform. (However uniform you can get it) But it's more rational to assume 'this universe' is real since I'm living it whether I like it or not. WYSIWYG.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78927853413202332042007-05-20T13:17:00.000+00:002007-05-20T13:17:00.000+00:00As your comment that science "only" explains this ...As your comment that science "only" explains <I>this</I> universe: If you aware of another universe which stand in need of explanation, would you be so kind as to point me to it?<BR/><BR/><I>there's a hell<BR/>of a good universe next door; let's go</I>—e. e. cummingsLarry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2029794622316423382007-05-20T13:13:00.000+00:002007-05-20T13:13:00.000+00:00Nutcasenightmare: The scientific method does not a...Nutcasenightmare: The scientific method does not <I>assume</I> that this universe is regular—this universe is, in many aspects, obviously <I>not</I> regular. There are differences and irregularities all over the place. The scientific method <I>hypothesizes</I> particular regularities to account for observed consistencies. There is a big difference between hypotheses and assumptions, which reduces to the difference between <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/search/label/Scientific%20Method" REL="nofollow">deductivism and evidentialism</A>.<BR/><BR/>The assumption that this universe is "real" is a linguistic or semantic assumption; it fails to rise even to the level of a metaphysical assumption. This argument reduces to: Science is expressed in language; language is an arbitrary construct; therefore science is an arbitrary construct. This way leads only to epistemic nihilism.<BR/><BR/>Being critical or skeptical of something, even the scientific method, does not entail rejecting it outright. Skepticism (the ordinary variety, not the ancient Greek school of epistemic nihilism) simply means subjecting beliefs to critical scrutiny.<BR/><BR/>I'm really at a loss to understand why you find the arguments Law describes in his post compelling. They've been soundly rebutted here in at least two different ways.<BR/><BR/><I>: New Agers are sorta theistic, (methinks) for they believe in 'mystical powers' and the supernatural.</I><BR/><BR/>We appear, at least, to be in agreement on this point. People who believe in mystical powers and supernaturalism, even if they do not believe that suchlike are the exclusive province of "God" (i.e. a particular conscious, sapient entity), have merely given a slightly different spin to the sort of bullshit originally popularized by theism.<BR/><BR/>It is precisely these sorts of people I explicitly label in my earlier comment as "nonscientific atheists".Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21432646953245354712007-05-20T04:23:00.000+00:002007-05-20T04:23:00.000+00:00Barefoot Bum:SCIENTIFIC atheists use science (inst...Barefoot Bum:<BR/><BR/>SCIENTIFIC atheists use science (instead of religion as theists do) to try to explain everything. However, science works only for this universe, assuming it's uniform or even REAL.<BR/><BR/>NONSCIENTIFIC atheists question the reliability of science using the two agruments Stephen Law brought up. And admittedly, they're quite compelling.<BR/><BR/>So why vilify the nonscientific atheists? They're just more skeptical, anyway.<BR/><BR/>P.S: New Agers are sorta theistic, (methinks) for they believe in 'mystical powers' and the supernatural. The reasonableness of believing in those things is on par with the reasonableness of believing in God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87358750097370771972007-05-19T23:48:00.000+00:002007-05-19T23:48:00.000+00:00Nutcasenightmare: Technically, you're correct, and...Nutcasenightmare: Technically, you're correct, and there are in fact nonscientific nontheists (<I>cough</I> New Age bullshit). However, most scientific atheists see nonscientific atheists being almost as full of BS as theists.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50319266880294937062007-05-19T18:31:00.000+00:002007-05-19T18:31:00.000+00:00I just noticed these arguments are against science...I just noticed these arguments are against science. Is atheism really linked with science? Atheism is a subcategory of skeptism, and not believing in God has no connection in believing in science.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, the two arguments against atheism are irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43251264309615579642007-05-14T19:52:00.000+00:002007-05-14T19:52:00.000+00:00I wish you'd put a comma between "belief" and "wei...<I>I wish you'd put a comma between "belief" and "weighed".</I><BR/><BR/>Likewise. Sadly, one cannot edit comments.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21169118287372858932007-05-14T18:18:00.000+00:002007-05-14T18:18:00.000+00:00BB: Yes, OK; though I wish you'd put a comma betwe...BB: Yes, OK; though I wish you'd put a comma between "belief" and "weighed".<BR/><BR/>Pity, I needed an argument, all this being Ms Reasonable elsewhere is a strain. I nearly just made a different suggestion for the next in Julian's current series. Och, I will go back to execrating Bernard Williams on bodily continuity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30673994742916252522007-05-14T12:09:00.000+00:002007-05-14T12:09:00.000+00:00I think my usage of "evidence for" is sloppy. I do...I think my usage of "evidence for" is sloppy. I don't think categorizing evidence as for or against is a good idea in the first place; the metaphor of "weighing" the evidence is, I think, misleading.<BR/><BR/>The evidence is just the evidence. The evidence is not weighed, the <I>competing explanations</I> are weighed.<BR/><BR/>On this view, we have a relatively simple, direct, straightforward naturalistic account of the evidence, including the existence of widespread belief weighed against bizarre, rococo superstitions, overflowing with exceptions and special cases. The "arguments" for theism depend on the entire panoply of logical fallacies.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26267025291214206842007-05-13T17:28:00.000+00:002007-05-13T17:28:00.000+00:00There isn't no evidence at all for the existence o...There isn't no evidence at all for the existence of a god, IMHO. There is the evidence that an awful lot of people think a god exists. So we should want to know why this is the case. A perfectly good answer to this is now well under way (see Breaking the Spell) but it's all quite recent work. The subject worried me more say 20 years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37893664020132466012007-05-13T02:05:00.000+00:002007-05-13T02:05:00.000+00:00I don't know that there's an evidential gridlock b...I don't know that there's an evidential gridlock between theism and atheism. That there's no evidence at all <I>for</I> the existence of a God argues one of two points: Either that no God exists, or the existence of God has no evidentiary consequence. A God with no evidentiary consequence doesn't seem like much of a God at all, indistinguishable from one that does not exist at all.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67238696078663211762007-05-12T15:54:00.000+00:002007-05-12T15:54:00.000+00:00Quick response to Timmo - get round to the others ...Quick response to Timmo - get round to the others later...<BR/><BR/>Yep if it were true that the evidence for and against God were evenly balanced, then both could be "faith positions". But it's not. As I pointed out in "The God of Eth". Check it out...<BR/><BR/>Of course, I realize most theists won't accept this. But then that's the weird thing about religion - it's power to blind people to what really should be blindingly obvious.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32083184042733141682007-05-11T21:13:00.000+00:002007-05-11T21:13:00.000+00:00I agree with Tom Freeman and Potentilla.Tom Freema...I agree with Tom Freeman and Potentilla.<BR/><BR/>Tom Freeman:<BR/><BR/>Indeed, everything we think we know is based on observation and induction.<BR/><BR/>And I agree theists are making a BIGGER leap of faith than atheists- theists have to have faith that the physical universe exists AND that an intangible one too. Atheists; just the physical universe.<BR/><BR/>And as I argued earlier, reality is at its most SUBJECTIVE, if not non-existent entirely. But I'm sticking with my own reality.<BR/><BR/>Potentilla:<BR/><BR/>The more stuff you get for a statement's induction, the higher PROBABILITY of the statement being true.<BR/><BR/>Contemporary science works only under the most probable circumstances. IMprobable circumstances are hard to experiment with.<BR/><BR/>I hope gravity stays this way for a while, though.<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Right now I want to fix a hole in my previous comment for theist argument #1. I said that science works because of induction because of probability, but probability is a part of math, which is a part of science.<BR/><BR/>So what I just said, really, was 'science works because of science.'<BR/><BR/>O.O ... not the circular argument!<BR/><BR/>I want to clarify just because I can describe induction as mathematical doesn't necessarily MEAN it's mathematical. I could describe induction as getting grounds supporting a case, and the more grounds you get, the more backed up the case is.<BR/><BR/>So, science works because of induction because of probability, period; or that science works because of the gathering of grounds to support it.<BR/><BR/>"Well, you need FAITH that those grounds EXIST, right?"<BR/><BR/>What I Sense Is What I Get. What I'll Never Sense I'll Never Get. Easy as cake.<BR/><BR/>Of course, there is just a smidgen of faith when making inferences. (A way to come up with grounds) Here's a scale of how direct an inference might be:<BR/><BR/>10(reiteration)-----0(non sequitor)<BR/><BR/>An 'inference' that falls on 10 isn't really an inference. Like 'the cat is blue because the cat is blue.' It's the same.<BR/><BR/>An 'inference' on 0 isn't an inference either. Like 'the cat is blue because 74 human heads are swimming in the bathtub.' You may argue there might be a VERY SMALL connection between swimming heads and blue cats, but it's still practically none.<BR/><BR/>So note 10 and 0 are theoretical. No inference can actually fall on those spots.<BR/><BR/>So where does faith come in? Because nothing can actually fall on 10 in the scale of directness, inferences always take a little bit of faith to connect two events. <BR/><BR/>Like if you infer 'the cat is blue because we painted him blue,' you have to have the faith that painting something blue will make it blue. By definition, it SHOULD, but maybe something else would happen like the cat got washed after you painted him or something unlikely like that. Inferring it's blue because I painted it blue is, on the directness scale, a 9, leaving a 1 for faith to connect.<BR/><BR/>The theists argue like this: both atheism and theism use faith. Therefore both are EQUALLY unreasonable.<BR/><BR/>There are LEVELS of faith, as I just illustrated in my example above. The painting the cat blue inference has only a 1 on faith. Inferring something like 'Morality is because of God' is about a 0.2 on directness, and a 9.8 on faith.<BR/><BR/>To say atheism is equal on theism in terms of faith is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Many atheists admit you can't be ENTIRELY sure that cats become blue when you paint them that way, but it uses less faith than thinking God created the Universe.<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>There's another popular argument stipulating atheism is as unreasonable as theism because you can neither prove nor disprove God.<BR/><BR/>Ether was thought to be in outer space so light can go through, but ether was supposedly intangible and invisible. The inference is 'light is a wave and waves need something to wave through: therefore there's something out there for light to wave through.' On the directness scale, it was about a 7. Besides, one of the premises is wrong: light is part-wave, part-particle.<BR/><BR/>Now, because ether was beyond all physical senses, you couldn't prove nor DISprove it in any way.<BR/><BR/>But soon there was a more plausible explanation, and Ockham's razor was there to save the day: the Ether hypothesis needed a complicated, superfluous idea, so get rid it.<BR/><BR/>But note that the directness of inference isn't necessarily tied into it's correctness. The inference that 'I failed the test because I didn't study enough' is a 9 on directness, but it could be that the teacher messed up. Unlikely, but plausible.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: Ockham's razor gets rid of theism completely. Done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24658228094605180252007-05-11T19:01:00.000+00:002007-05-11T19:01:00.000+00:00I recently asked the question in (1) in the commen...I recently asked the question in (1) in the comments in Pharyngula (very politely) and got flamed. The best answer I have is the ultimately provisional nature of science. Science is not saying "induction is true, therefore science", it is saying "induction is most probably true, therefore all this science that hangs together and does useful stuff like flying planes, but if we wake up one morning and find that the sun hasn't risen and gravity has been switched off, whilst we try to work out why, we will certainly also strongly entertain the possibility that all the rest of science is wrong and unreliable too and certainly won't get in any planes until we understand it a bit better".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33019442839408405072007-05-11T18:52:00.000+00:002007-05-11T18:52:00.000+00:00Wait, are you a phenomenalist or not?Yes. '-) Depe...<I>Wait, are you a phenomenalist or not?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. '-) Depends on what you mean by "phenomenalist". I mostly agree with phenomenalism in principle, with the proviso that I don't necessarily agree with everything anyone's ever said about phenomenalism.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com