Gene Frenkle Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon. "Where's the dragon?" you ask. "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved." Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon. Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all. Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion. Do you see any similarities to other, more organized magical beliefs? Discuss if you like...
GG Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Do you see any similarities to other, more organized magical beliefs? Discuss if you like... I think Voltaire had a saying that would fit your thread. Discuss if you like....
/dev/null Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Do you see any similarities to other, more organized magical beliefs? Discuss if you like... Both the Republican and Democratic National Committees?
Magox Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Discuss if you like... It was nice out side today, a bit breezy, around 75 degrees, I hear it is suppose to get chilly this weekend, down around 60 or so.
KD in CA Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Discuss if you like... So how many here are actually getting the N1H1 shot?
John Adams Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I think Voltaire had a saying that would fit your thread. Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd?
LeviF Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I'm surprised dellapelle john hasn't jumped on this yet.
StupidNation Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 So the entire argument about God is that he is incorporeal (true) and therefore not provable? I mean why not argue against the existence of society, justice, culture, goodness, etc. because they are all incorporeal too. How about numbers, they are incorporeal abstractions of the singular directed by the abstractions of reason. Just because there are 5 solid proofs that God exists does not mean they do not exist because they are not perceptual, it just means you are not intellectually capable to understand the logic. It would be as if you were arguing with an engineering major about gravity and the mathematical basis for such decisions that would go into making a bridge. Imagine you saying "well gravity is not visible and I've never seen a 2 of anything, let alone calculus, why not just say you can't prove it and we are on equal ground ok?" Metaphysics is the same thing, except you believe because you have equal abilities to reason as others that you must be rational, and therefore we are on equal ground in the debate. Well before we go any further in the argument "if you can't see/taste/feel it" well it's all conjecture just remember that your entire reasoning process is based principally on logic which is also something you cannot taste/see/feel but rationalized based on ideas which are conceptual, not perceptual.
OGTEleven Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Do you see any similarities to other, more organized magical beliefs? Discuss if you like... It makes me a little sad honestly because I always perceived Sagan to be a good guy and someone who was thoughtful and respectful of others. In your quote he is far from it. If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. I believe in God. I have never sought to prove God's existence to myself or to anyone else. If you ask me, I will explain why I believe (perhaps not well), but will never under any circumstances claim proof in a scientific manner (or any other manner really). I have no interest in pre-emptively bringing up my belief to you or anyone else. I very strongly expect to die believing in, but not knowing if God exists. As a matter of fact, I would be disappointed if God truly revealed himself before my death. I am not here to prove anything to anyone about God and ask for no proof. Sagan's mocking dragon example talks of believers as if they are childish people, constantly stomping their feet and demanding to be heard. Of course, there are plenty of people like this (on both sides of any argument), but the vast majority of believers are not. That is why they call themselves believers, not knowers. By going on and on with an example anyone could understand after three sentences he tries to paint believers with a broad brush. He puts words in their mouth and by doing so betrays his own deference to science. There is nothing wrong with his argument on the basis of the overly repeated facts. For the most part though, he is arguing against very few people and claims to be arguing against very many people. To me this quote says Sagan was either a hack, a liar, or astonishingly arrogant. He was a hack if he failed to take the time to understand or acknowledge that most believers understand exactly what they are. He was a liar if he understood this and simply continued to use the same argument anyway. He was arrogant if he demanded that the dragon reveal himself, because after all, he was Carl Sagan and the dragon simply must recognize his importance. That's what makes me sad.
LeviF Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 So the entire argument about God is that he is incorporeal (true) and therefore not provable? I mean why not argue against the existence of society, justice, culture, goodness, etc. because they are all incorporeal too. How about numbers, they are incorporeal abstractions of the singular directed by the abstractions of reason. Sagan's (and many non-believing scholars') problem with the concept of God is not that he is not provable, it's that you can't apply the scientific method to God at all. Not only can it not be proved, it can't be disproved (as a whole). Just because there are 5 solid proofs that God exists does not mean they do not exist because they are not perceptual, it just means you are not intellectually capable to understand the logic. There are? It would be as if you were arguing with an engineering major about gravity and the mathematical basis for such decisions that would go into making a bridge. Imagine you saying "well gravity is not visible and I've never seen a 2 of anything, let alone calculus, why not just say you can't prove it and we are on equal ground ok?" Back to the scientific method. You can apply the scientific method to gravity, and show relations that prove calculus works as we express it. Metaphysics is the same thing, except you believe because you have equal abilities to reason as others that you must be rational, and therefore we are on equal ground in the debate. Well before we go any further in the argument "if you can't see/taste/feel it" well it's all conjecture just remember that your entire reasoning process is based principally on logic which is also something you cannot taste/see/feel but rationalized based on ideas which are conceptual, not perceptual. I don't know enough about metaphysics to say anything here.
IDBillzFan Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd? We must cultivate our garden. Or something like that.
GG Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 We must cultivate our garden. Or something like that. You mean like in a Brazilian wax kind of way?
Jim in Anchorage Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I'm surprised dellapelle john hasn't jumped on this yet. I heard he had a fire of mysterious origin in his garage.
John Adams Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Just because there are 5 solid proofs that God exists does not mean they do not exist because they are not perceptual, it just means you are not intellectually capable to understand the logic. Thanks for being stupid stupid. The "5 proofs" don't prove god. They prove that there are questions for which we don't have answers. Big difference.
LeviF Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I heard he had a fire of mysterious origin in his garage.
OCinBuffalo Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Sagan's (and many non-believing scholars') problem with the concept of God is not that he is not provable, it's that you can't apply the scientific method to God at all. Not only can it not be proved, it can't be disproved (as a whole). Back to the scientific method. You can apply the scientific method to gravity, and show relations that prove calculus works as we express it. As a guy who has dealt with endless "methodologies" I can say this with certainty, and certainty with no absurdity : All Methodology is fallible. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either selling something, naive, stupid or ignorant, take your pick. Given that, throwing around the Scientific Method proves nothing. It is quite possible, hell, likely, that the Scientific Method itself will need a major overhaul to understand things like extra dimensions, as in: What if an extra dimension's existence is atomic, thereby making it impossible to ever reproduce the data from the single experiment that proves its existence, or modifies/creates it? Does that mean it doesn't exist? If we use the current scientific method as defined, the answer can only be NO, and, we have to "scientifically" not believe our own eyes. If we need to modify the Scientific Method just to deal with extra dimensions, think about what we would have to do to it to prove the existence of God....
Gene Frenkle Posted November 17, 2009 Author Posted November 17, 2009 First, set up the false premise... As a guy who has dealt with endless "methodologies" I can say this with certainty, and certainty with no absurdity : All Methodology is fallible. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either selling something, naive, stupid or ignorant, take your pick. Use the false premise... Given that, throwing around the Scientific Method proves nothing. It is quite possible, hell, likely, that the Scientific Method itself will need a major overhaul to understand things like extra dimensions, as in: Pull some vaguely scientific-sounding phrases out of your ass... What if an extra dimension's existence is atomic, thereby making it impossible to ever reproduce the data from the single experiment that proves its existence, or modifies/creates it? Does that mean it doesn't exist? If we use the current scientific method as defined, the answer can only be NO, and, we have to "scientifically" not believe our own eyes. Finally, state your ridiculously unsupported conclusion as if you've just proved something mathematically... If we need to modify the Scientific Method just to deal with extra dimensions, think about what we would have to do to it to prove the existence of God.... Good stuff.
OCinBuffalo Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 First, set up the false premise... What's false exactly? ....(this ought to be good) Tell me your vast experience in methodology and about it's infallibility(says the enterprise project manager and technical architect to the....computer guy ...uh yeah...it's a setup....let's see if dopey here sees it.) Since my premise is not false, using it is just fine. Pull some vaguely scientific-sounding phrases out of your ass... Ah yes, concepts you don't understand must be bad/made up. Finally, state your ridiculously unsupported conclusion as if you've just proved something mathematically... Unsupported how? Again, you not understanding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist/is bad. I am merely stating that clearly the Scientific Method, like all methodologies, cannot be treated as infallible...no different than God, according to you. Having literally lived that reality, and seen plenty of idiots 'die' by it, I know. I can prove the fallibility of all methodologies mathematically any time you choose. I just need to dig up old status reports and budgets, and show you the glaring f ups and project delays, never mind individual's wasted time, costing clients big $$$$ directly due to some tool on a peer project telling us that their method was infallible and should be used to explain and drive all things. Your entire post is merely more evidence that the "God bad" crowd is just as dogmatic, unenlightened and prone to zealotry as the religious zealots themselves. Do yourself a favor and run along. This will only get worse for you....don't try to be "smart". You have already demonstrated your low level of intellectual ability in multiple threads. Remember, being a liberal doesn't make you smart, as evidenced by the current administration, it just makes you think that you or others are entitled to other people's stuff.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 17, 2009 Author Posted November 17, 2009 What's false exactly? ....(this ought to be good) Tell me your vast experience in methodology and about it's infallibility(says the enterprise project manager and technical architect to the....computer guy ...uh yeah...it's a setup....let's see if dopey here sees it.) Since my premise is not false, using it is just fine. Ah yes, concepts you don't understand must be bad/made up. Since you are a computer guy, let's give you an opportunity to talk about something you know: there is this made up thing called workflow that I pulled out of my ass. Tell us all about how terrible workflow systems are and about their limited value, since, it's either made up/bad. Unsupported how? Again, you not understanding something doesn't mean its doesn't exist/bad. I am merely stating that clearly the Scientific Method, like all methodologies, cannot be treated as infallible...no more than the belief in God you hate so much. Having literally lived that reality, and seen plenty of idiots 'die' by it, I know. I can prove the fallibility of all methodologies mathematically any time you choose. I just need to dig up old status reports and budgets, and show you the glaring f ups and project delays, never mind individual's wasted time, costing clients big $$$$ directly due to some tool on a peer project telling us that their method was infallible and should be used to explain and drive all things. Your entire post is merely more evidence that the "God bad" crowd is just as dogmatic, unenlightened and prone to zealotry as the religious zealots themselves. Do yourself a favor and run along. This will only get worse for you....don't try to be "smart". You have already demonstrated your low level of intellectual ability in multiple threads. Remember, being a liberal doesn't make you smart, as evidenced by the current administration, it just makes you think that you or others are entitled to other people's stuff. You always try so hard. In most things in life, intelligence is no substitute for trying hard. I wish I could fight through more of your posts.
OCinBuffalo Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 You always try so hard. In most things in life, intelligence is no substitute for trying hard. I wish I could fight through more of your posts. You can't even come close to a response. Once again. What are you now 0-22 against me? Edit: Hell I edited my last to try to take it easy on you. Come on dude....
Recommended Posts