RocketGirl: Animator

[RocketGirl]

Still, I don't think you understand what I mean by a belief, RocketGirl. When I say 'regardless of how you come to that conclusion', I do not mean a belief entails disregarding logical steps. I mean that whether you come to a conclusion via logic or evidence or indoctrination or whatever, that conclusion is a belief. I understand, however, that you might see a certain degree of ambiguity in the term, so I'll move on to something else.

Oh, more than that...I deeply, deeply disagree; when you have facts on your side, belief becomes redundant.

One of the dictionary definitions of belief is such: "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"
This is exactly what I'm talking about, right here, why I reject the term "belief" in this context.

As a thought experiment, I put to you (by 'you' I mean anyone) a simple question: Do I, nickspoon, truly exist?

First, I must assume that you mean you as a physical entity, and not "nickspoon" as an identity or persona adopted for the internet and which is not representative of your offline personality and demeanor.

Next, according to all available data, yes. Though the possibility exists that the data have been faked in some way, and that one's observations on the matter are false, when sliced with Occam's Razor, the potential of that scenario is unlikely to the point of ridiculousness. The fact of your existence is, indeed, susceptible to rigorous proof, and thus according to the definition above--which is the one I use when discussing belief--belief is not required since the data are available for testing.
The only reasonable conclusion given the facts is that, yes, you exist. However, one is quite willing to reconsider the matter pending new evidence.

The kind of belief you seem to be talking about is much fuzzier, and NOT the sort which I am trying to debunk with the Rational Station series.

[nickspoon]

I didn't say you were trying to debunk it, but simply that empiricism can be called a belief where a belief is, as the dictionary defines it, "something believed; an opinion or conviction." I am quite happy to accept that a belief in the scientific method is very much susceptible to rigorous proof as far as such proof exists; indeed to some degree the scientific method itself defines rigorous proof.

As for the question I posed, I am referring to my purported physical human self. Is it not entirely possible, however, that I am a highly-developed artificially intelligent robot which, through the medium of the internet, can fool you into thinking that it is human? I refuse to accept Occam's razor as a proof; as William of Occam himself concedes, it is not so much a proof as a general rule of thumb.

[RocketGirl]

I didn't say you were trying to debunk it, but simply that empiricism can be called a belief where a belief is, as the dictionary defines it, "something believed; an opinion or conviction."

But that's not the definition that applies here, that's my point. The definition that applies is this one:
"confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"

Under this definition--taken from dictionary.com--empirically proved claims do not qualify as belief. When I say that I reject belief in favor of proof, this is precisely what I'm talking about.
If we're going to discuss this rationally, you're going to have to accept that these are the terms that are relevant to the statements I'm making, otherwise we're going to be talking past each other.

As for the question I posed, I am referring to my purported physical human self. Is it not entirely possible, however, that I am a highly-developed artificially intelligent robot which, through the medium of the internet, can fool you into thinking that it is human?

No, not really.

Given the state of artificial intelligence today, the likelihood of such a mechanical entity existing AND that it is spending its time on a webboard based on on a comic strip about anthropomorphic animals is, frankly, improbable to the point of straining credulity.

Is it possible? Yes. Plausible? Hell, no. Just because something is possible does not mean that the odds of its being reality are 50/50.
While it's true that ALL facts must be treated as tentative pending new data, some are supported by so much evidence, that concluding otherwise is just simply unreasonable. Compare this to religious faith claims, which are supported by NO evidence at all beyond subjective accounts of fallible people whose accounts cannot be subjected to the kinds of testing that scientific claims are...then try to tell me again how empirical claims are just belief.

Apples and oranges, mate.

I refuse to accept Occam's razor as a proof; as William of Occam himself concedes, it is not so much a proof as a general rule of thumb.

Occam's Razor isn't proof, nor did I claim it as such. However, it is more than just a rule of thumb; it's a methodology for determining the veracity of a claim.

[Comrade K]

The very fact that belief is something you hold to be true regardless of how you come to the conclusion, is precisely why I don't much care for the word

Still, I don't think you understand what I mean by a belief, RocketGirl. When I say 'regardless of how you come to that conclusion', I do not mean a belief entails disregarding logical steps. I mean that whether you come to a conclusion via logic or evidence or indoctrination or whatever, that conclusion is a belief. I understand, however, that you might see a certain degree of ambiguity in the term, so I'll move on to something else.

It requires a certain degree of faith to even believe that there exists a physical world. There is no evidence either way as to the existence of an actual material world, nor will there likely ever be. The only thing one can really ascertain is that one's mind exists (Descartes' cogito), and perhaps even that is shaky (J.S. Mill postulates that even such basic logic is inductive). There is an enormous degree of uncertainty, no matter where you look.

As a thought experiment, I put to you (by 'you' I mean anyone) a simple question: Do I, nickspoon, truly exist?

(I do not wish to go down the is-religion-evil route, because that one has been done to death. This kind of ontological question is something I find interesting, though.)

You've essentially managed to sum up what I was about to say before having read your post.

Especially in relation to "cogito." I cannot be absolutely positive of anything apart from my own existence.

Now, I consider "knowing" an absolute. If I truly know, I am absolutely certain. Again, the only thing I can know with perfect certainty is that my consciousness exists in some form. There are infinite more or less probable realities in which my consciousness could exists, but no matter how I try, I can never be absolutely certain of anything beyond that. Thus, I cannot know. If I cannot know, I can only believe. Degree of conviction has no bearing on whether something is classified as either knowledge of belief.

Now, if one makes the statement that "x is true", and one is not consciously lying, then there are only two options: one knows x is true, or one believes x is true. I interpret this next quote as stating that "nickspoon does exist," and then considering that absolute knowledge, rather than a belief.

Next, according to all available data, yes. Though the possibility exists that the data have been faked in some way, and that one's observations on the matter are false, when sliced with Occam's Razor, the potential of that scenario is unlikely to the point of ridiculousness. The fact of your existence is, indeed, susceptible to rigorous proof, and thus according to the definition above--which is the one I use when discussing belief--belief is not required since the data are available for testing.
The only reasonable conclusion given the facts is that, yes, you exist. However, one is quite willing to reconsider the matter pending new evidence.

The key to this is "pending new evidence." In the same sense, the people in the middle ages knew the Earth was round, and that the Sun revolved around it. According the available evidence at the time, this was true. But evidently, they were wrong (as far as we can tell). So, did they know "pending new evidence"? Or did they believe?

[RocketGirl]

You've essentially managed to sum up what I was about to say before having read your post.

And while I was at the store, I thought up an even more concise way to say it: That which is asserted but cannot be or has not been demonstrated or tested is believed; that which can be demonstrated does not require belief. That which is asserted, but demonstration fails, is wrong.

Especially in relation to "cogito." I cannot be absolutely positive of anything apart from my own existence.

I thought I was being original when I first said, "Cogito ergo zoom," but looking it up...other people came up with that one already (dammit).
...but it still amuses me.

The key to this is "pending new evidence." In the same sense, the people in the middle ages knew the Earth was round, and that the Sun revolved around it. According the available evidence at the time, this was true. But evidently, they were wrong (as far as we can tell). So, did they know "pending new evidence"? Or did they believe?

I consider knowing to be absolute...pending contradictory data. But many people who claim to know things, really don't...because of their lack of data or experimentation to determine the veracity of their assertions.
Knowledge cannot simply be declared by fiat; it has to be earned.

These people who thought the sun revolved around the Earth, they made assertions based entirely on observational data...but without experimentation, without adequate testing.
Their data, though seemingly conclusive, was never tested; the sun looks like it goes 'round the Earth, but that's a subjective, untested claim; though it appears reasonable, it's actually not admissible as data until it has been tested properly.
So whether they knew or believed, their methodology was wrong and therefore they were wrong.

[Chris]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

[RocketGirl]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

Don't MAKE me pull out Thunderdome references...

[Comrade K]

These people who thought the sun revolved around the Earth, they made assertions based entirely on observational data...but without experimentation, without adequate testing.
Their data, though seemingly conclusive, was never tested; the sun looks like it goes 'round the Earth, but that's a subjective, untested claim; though it appears reasonable, it's actually not admissible as data until it has been tested properly.
So whether they knew or believed, their methodology was wrong and therefore they were wrong.

Yet they believed their methodology was adequate. Assume for a moment our current methodology proves inadequate, and incapable of explaining phenomena x. Now what you thought you knew has been proven wrong through more advanced testing capabilities than what we now possess. We were wrong because our methodology was wrong, regardless of the fact that we thought it was correct.

It seems that you're essentially trying to say that something is true and therefore known up until the point when it isn't. The cat is either dead or alive, and if you thought it was alive based on all available evidence right up until it was revealed to be dead, you weren't right up until that point.

[/i]

[Dr. Sticks]

but she'll accept that it was dead when she sees proof that it is

[RocketGirl]

Yet they believed their methodology was adequate.

Yet it obviously was not. In fact, it wasn't a methodology at all, it was just observation. And subjective observation, at that. Experiments were NOT done to verify their assumptions...in fact assumption is, in and of itself, part of the problem.
Current methodologies are designed specifically to eliminate such deficiencies; that's the point.

Assume for a moment our current methodology proves inadequate, and incapable of explaining phenomena x. Now what you thought you knew has been proven wrong through more advanced testing capabilities than what we now possess. We were wrong because our methodology was wrong, regardless of the fact that we thought it was correct.

While that is technically true, it is not a comparable case to the one of the sun going 'round the Earth.
Currently, the scientific method is, indeed, the right one for sifting through data and performing experiments to determine the truth of something. If new methods of collecting data are introduced, science will adapt, and may discover that certain conclusions were in error...however, it'll not be because the thinking was wrong, only because the information gathering techniques were insufficient.

It seems that you're essentially trying to say that something is true and therefore known up until the point when it isn't. The cat is either dead or alive, and if you thought it was alive based on all available evidence right up until it was revealed to be dead, you weren't right up until that point.

...or that one doesn't have sufficient data to make a definitive judgment. "I don't know," is a perfectly reasonable position to take, so long as it is followed up with, "...so let's find out."
Your characterization doesn't leave this as an option, that one may decide not to take a position when one possesses far too little evidence to make a judgment.

What I'm REALLY getting at is that it's wrong to be confident in something without sufficient empirical evidence. And that claims of the existence of a deity or the afterlife are by design neither empirically provable nor are those who profess such beliefs even allowed to gather empirical evidence; it is built right into religion that faith--belief without evidence--is a virtue, that it is praise-worthy to claim to just know, despite this lack, despite this prohibition against investigation.

Faith is NOT a virtue, and it is by religion's very demand for faith and the lack of falsifiability that religious conflicts cannot be ended.
Imagine what could happen in the Middle East, for example, if faith could be eliminated as a factor, if people were forced to justify their beliefs with evidence. "We're right!" "No, we're right!" "Prove it!" "It's faith, not proof...but we're still right!" "No, we're right!" "That's it; I'm gonna kill ya!"
...that ENDS when faith is no longer a factor, because you can prove who is right with evidence, in a way that anybody can see. This may not end the conflict, but these folks will still have to face up to the fact that they're being extremely crappy to each other on their own initiative, and not for a deity.
And the same holds true for abortion or gay rights, for example; if these people didn't have faith to fall back on, they could be proved wrong that, for example, my girlfriend and I are inherently an abomination.

So, no...faith is NOT a virtue; being able to prove with evidence that your position is the right one to take IS.
And the scientific viewpoint is malleable in ways that faith is not; no matter how unpalatable, scientific worldviews change when the data no longer support one's conclusion. Demonstrable fact trumps faith and belief every time.

I don't know how many different times and ways I can say the same thing, but there it is. Again.

[Burning Sheep Productions]

I can agree with RocketGirl but not in cases where human reasoning is flawed. Can you imagine if children weren't naturally inclined to follow instructions from authoritative parents?

[RocketGirl]

Can you imagine if children weren't naturally inclined to follow instructions from authoritative parents?

While that's true from a survival standpoint, it's exactly that characteristic of children that allows what Richard Dawkins calls the virus of faith to be transmitted from generation to generation, why he's so against the religious indoctrination of the young. Religious myths and faith are drilled into youngsters from a very early age, when they're inclined to take what adults say at face value, and thus, their minds are hijacked before they're ready to critically examine what it told to them.

[Dr. Sticks]

Rocketgirl, I believe that in his cat-example it was implied that you DID have instruments to use in attempt to figure out if the cat was alive or not, and in this case you had generally experienced that the instruments were not faulty [and produced sound, empirical data], and yet your conclusion was still proven wrong

[RocketGirl]

Rocketgirl, I believe that in his cat-example it was implied that you DID have instruments to use in attempt to figure out if the cat was alive or not, and in this case you had generally experienced that the instruments were not faulty [and produced sound, empirical data], and yet your conclusion was still proven wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat

[Dr. Sticks]

but my point is that Comrade implied that you had evidence [albeit, not DEFINITIVE evidence, but evidence pointed to it being alive] that the cat was alive, as opposed to "no way of determining whether the cat is alive or dead", as the traditional situation goes.