Reg Prescott

I didn't present an exhaustive dichotomy. I simply mentioned two possibilities that immediately leapt to mind. As for attitude, perhaps your own might be a little different if you'd had to endure what I have in these forums. Re - calling people fools. I don't believe I've done any such thing (although clearly you and others have interpreted me this way). It's patently obvious that your members are very clever people. I do believe a significant number of them might be aptly described as excessively stubborn though.

Part 1: A response to Ophiolite's post # 46 ----------------------------------------------------- Two possibilities present themselves immediately: (i) Your appraisal of me is, in fact, accurate, and that is, roughly: I'm a supercilious, arrogant, pot-stirring, passive-aggressive, anti-science troll wanker or (ii) People who consider themselves authorities -- and indeed ARE authorities in a particular domain -- do not take kindly to having factual and conceptual confusions in their own authoritative pronouncements brought to light. While no one DOES science better than the players themselves, surely this needn't imply that the players have the final word on all science-related matters: history, sociology, philosophy, etc. of science, not to mention basic logical inference. If one's entire inventory of beliefs is founded on the concept of "evidence"... Why do you belief X? Ans: It is supported by the evidence Why do you not believe Y? Ans: There is no evidence for Y ... then is it not a matter of the utmost importance to subject the concept "evidence" itself to scrutiny? Part 2 : A summary of some of the confusions revealed thus far -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Initially John Cuthber tells us simply there is no evidence for God, which implies at least that it's the kind of thing evidence could bear upon; there might be evidence, it's just that no one has presented any. iNow tells us God is not even a theory ("It's an ill-defined three letter word with no objective characteristics and no predictive ability that differs from person to person and even day to day within the same individual." -- post 42), implying it's not even the kind of thing there could be evidence for. Both vacillate between "theory", "scientific theory", and "hypothesis"; as one gets awkward, they seek refuge in another. Ajb tells us there IS evidence (sometimes hedged with scare quotes) for God, but nothing that satisfies his fourfold criteria: objectivity, consistency, repeatability, and credibility. Both himself (post 49) and Swansont (posts 27, 30) have objected to my focussing only on the obvious circularity of the fourth (credibility) and ignoring the conjunctive nature of his criteria. But these are not four independent criteria; the first three JUST ARE a list of objective criteria constitutive of his fourth subjective criterion -- credibility -- which, of course, is to be read as credibility to him and people like him. (as Swansont notes himself: "For it to boil down to credibility the evidence must first be consistent, repeatable and objective." - post 30). Meanwhile, all of this masks a much deeper concern. Supposing we eliminate credibility from the list, for it's a dangler doing no work at all, and grant ajb's other criteria, then we're left with three objective criteria which constitute only necessary conditions for evidential acceptability, i.e., anything not satisfying these criteria will not even be considered as scientific evidence. Now this might or might not succeed --after all, granting ajb's criteria we can now say what is not admissible as evidence; we still don't know what IS admissible -- in keeping You-Know-Who (as well as Bigfoot and friends) safely outside the party, but we're still left entirely in the dark as to the relationship between evidence and theory. Ajb's revised trio of criteria would still not even begin to address this. Evidentiality is not something intrinsic; evidence is always evidence FOR something. Say, for example, a certain behaviour is observed in penguins, and this observation satisfies ajm's aforementioned criteria, does it now constitute evidence? Evidence for WHAT? For relativity theory? Presumably not. I trust the problem is clear. Nothing whatsoever has been advanced by any contributor, as far as I can see, to specify the nature of the relationship between evidence and theory (and oscillating between theory, scientific theory, and hypothesis is entirely unhelpful; presumably they are all the kinds of beasts that evidence can bear upon). Leaving evidence aside, we see further confusions regarding the "agenda of science"; some claim verification, others falsification, some both, and when inconsistencies are exposed everyone scrambles to reconcile the contradictory claims. The same applies to the relationship between science and truth; does science have nothing to do with truth, as some members claim implausibly, or do many scientists believe they are producing theories which are true or approximately so (ydoaPs - post 6) "We're really all saying the same thing, you see" you try to persuade. Sorry, you're not. Part 3: What's the big deal? ----------------------------------- Do I think it's reprehensible that no consensus exists, and confusion is rife, on matters of evidence, scientific method, the aims of science, etc? Ans: Not in the slightest. We all get confused. Better to acknowledge and address the confusion than sweep it under the rug. Well, what's the problem then? The problem is that everyone is behaving as if there IS no confusion. Everyone seems to believe he has the last word on these extremely complicated and possibly intractable problems: We know exactly what we're talking about. With our pithy one-liners we have solved problems which have vexed innumerable very clever thinkers for decades or even centuries. I don't think anyone throughout the entire thread has qualified one of his pronouncements with a humble "in my opinion" or "I might be wrong about this". Meanwhile I get accused of arrogance. Each post I make is almost invariably and predictably met with "You're wrong", "Your rebuttal is ineffective" or words to this effect -- not forgetting the obligatory -1 reputation stain. It appears I haven't advanced a single cogent criticism throughout the thread -- and another similar thread -- implying either that I may be eligible for an award for the most incompetent poster in the history of the site, or else certain people are simply impervious to criticism, at least from what they consider to be an enemy. It's been said that anyone who is not bothered by quantum physics has rocks in their head. I submit the same might be said of those who think there is an easy, one-line, be-all-and-end-all answer to questions of evidence.

Tsk tsk. Shame on me. I hereby acknowledge that iNow said theory and not hypothesis. We might also note in passing that he originally said simply theory (post 42) which later morphed into scientific theory in post 44. The distinction between the two/three is left as a homework exercise to the reader. (Is there a graduation ceremony or its equivalent when a hypothesis officially earns the epithet theory? ). Less flippantly, though, it is a distinction which tends to be emphasized by the scientific community -- perhaps understandably as a defense against Creationist sneers that [insert theory] is only a theory -- and largely disregarded in the philosophy of science where the two terms are often used interchangeably. Hence my own carelessness. Apologies! Speaking personally, inasmuch as the the epistemic warrant for the existence of God can be described as dubious at best, he remains -- to this shameless goalpost mover anyway -- a theoretical entity par excellence. It is a distinction, moreover, to which Dawkins himself seems to pay little regard. From the same Wiki link above: "As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God."

Well, Richard Dawkins, for one, has asserted on many occasions that he regards that "ill-defined three letter word with no objective characteristics and no predictive ability" as a scientific hypothesis. He even wrote a book about it. This is just another example (how many do I have to adduce?!) of the inconsistency I'm referring to. As I said in the opening post: "The moral of the story here, boys and girls, is a familiar one. Ask ten people, including scientists themselves, what constitutes scientific evidence and you're likely to get ten different answers. Same goes for the agenda of science, the Scientific Method, and so on, and so forth. Each one is convinced there is a simple (it's clear!) answer to the question. he has it (of course!), and presumably anyone who has a different answer is just plain wrong (duh!)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion See the section on "Critical Reception" "Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other"

What's the problem? Since the God theory is unfalsifiable, it's unscientific? Once again I see no objection so long as you're all consistent. But John Cuthbert originally told us that it is the accumulation of supporting evidence, not falsifying evidence, which distinguishes science. Meanwhile, ydoaPs (post 6) tells us basically that Popper and his doctrine of falsifiabilty bears no resemblance to real science. So which is it?

I can't think of any.

I have not advanced any threshold of acceptable evidence. I have pointed out inconsistencies in other members' standards of evidence. I think I made it clear earlier that personally I find the evidence for God a load of bollocks.

... and the goalposts are moved once more. I was addressing Swansont's claim that "God is not a unique, historical event". This claim is unobjectionable, but he is confusing the theory with the evidence. The evidence (the case of Jesus or any other prophet) IS a unique historical event.

1. Ok, here's the entire post: I'm asking for religion to hold to the same standards as science. Claims should be based on observation logic and evidence. That is consistency. Just as soon as someone comes up with evidence for God, we can look at that evidence properly. Surely we ought to hold the "big questions" to at least the same standards as we hold criminal trials. If they can't justify their point of view "beyond reasonable doubt" there's no reason for us to pay particular attention to religious believers and their opinions. Religion will deserve to be taken seriously, just as soon as it shows that it's actually (or at least, probably) right. Until then it's something I can dismiss just the same way that I dismiss the idea of fairies in my garden. 2. You said : "God is not a unique, historical event" God is the theory, not the evidence. Your demand is that the evidence be repeatable. For many Christians, strong evidence for the existence of God (the theory) comes from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (the evidence). This evidence is not repeatable.

"I'm asking for religion to hold to the same standards as science." - John Cuthber (post 25)

Ok

But Andrew, if my understanding is correct, a vestigial trait is one which was once functional, but is no longer so. Moreover, vestigial traits, even if not functional, are part of the physical causal nexus (they cause and are caused upon -- just as rocks are). On the epiphenomenalist account, consciousness is not only non-functional (past, present, and future) in the biological sense, but is quite unable to exert causal influence on anything physical; it is caused by the physical brain, but causes nothing (with the possible exception of other conscious states).

Just woke up - VERY early (coz of thoughts of evidence) Well, here's a couple of starters: 1. To John (and anyone else who feels as he does). You have claimed in no uncertain terms that: there is no evidence for God. It seems to me, given the way you view these matters, that this claim is indistinguishable from a claim: there is no God. Let us suppose just for the sake of argument that God really does exist. Furthermore, many of the claims made on his behalf by the devout are indeed true, i.e. the universe and all creatures great and small are his divine handiwork, he does indeed answer the occasional prayer, perform the occasional miracle, and so on and so forth. Given this hypothetical scenario, would the statement there is no evidence for God be true? Or should we now say: I thought there was no evidence for God but I was wrong ? (This seems to parallel the situation with Bigfoot, alien visitations, and whatnot. Once again I emphasize I don't believe any of these things. But let's say that poor Mrs Smith really was abducted by aliens, then how can we possibly deny that there was evidence of alien visitation? The evidence was as good as it gets; it's just that the rest of us refused to accept it.) 2. To ajb and others: the question of inapplicability. Let's grant (although I don't) that you have identified the defining features of scientific evidence, viz., objectivity, consistency, repeatability, and all the rest. I'll just pick away at repeatability below for illustration. Now we have to consider the fact that science, by and large, deals with repeatable patterns in nature, laws, and so forth. But the subject matter of other disciplines -- history, for example -- concerns itself with one-time, non-repeatable, unique events. Surely it is unreasonable to demand of other disciplines that they comply with standards of evidence from another domain (physics, say) whose subject matter is quite incommensurable? "We cannot reproduce the assassination of Caesar in our labs, therefore ..." what? There is no evidence that Caesar was assassinated? As for this... This is not semantic nitpicking, comrade. This is vacuous circular reasoning on your part, I'm afraid, at least as far as I can see. Observe: 1. There is no credible evidence for a god or gods to the right people (i.e. "those who examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind" and conclude that the evidence is incredible) 2. The right people are those who find the putative evidence incredible Or put another way : There is no credible evidence for the existence of god or gods except to those who deem the evidence credible. Compare : There are no black swans except for the ones that are black. (To break the circularity here, you would have to admit the possibility that there might be people "who examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind" and DO NOT conclude that the evidence is incredible. And I think we all know there ARE scientists who believe in God. Now, if I present one of these embarrassing creatures to you as a counterexample, only to be rejected on the grounds that "Pfft! He does not have an open but scientific mind" I trust it's clear that we're back on the merry-go-round again.) If credibility is your standard for evidential acceptability, then quite simply: they have evidence. You may find it - and perhaps I do too -- silly, far-fetched, irrational, and just well... incredible. But this is all besides the point. Credibility is an epistemic notion; they find the evidence credible, therefore they satisfy your criterion of evidential acceptibility, therefore they have evidence. QED Now tell me why I'm wrong.

What's wrong with it -- many would say -- is that we would be hapless victims of the mother of all illusions: My arm goes up when it does not because of my conscious decision to raise it, but because of physically determined neurophysiological events; I married Tracy not because of rational deliberation, but because of PDNE; those terrorists planted the bomb not because of willful intent to harm, but PDNE, etc., etc. What's wrong with it is that we'd have to radically rethink our views of moral responsibility. All alleged wrongdoers can claim "My brain made me do it!". The evolutionists, meanwhile, might want to know, given that consciousness is causally impotent, why is it there in the first place. Speaking personally, I find the idea quite appealing. But not in the slightest plausible. Needless to say, I could be quite wrong. I'm familiar with the evidence you cited, Andrew. It is, of course, open to various divergent interpretations.

You're still off topic. Please do not respond to this non-modnote.

ajb... Well, with regards the first point (credibility) don't you see you've changed your position? You originally told us (post 19) simply that their evidence was not credible - period! Here it is again: "there is no credible, consistent, repeatable and objective evidence for a God or gods" In post 22 above, we now see this qualified as: not credible to the right kind of people: "None of the evidence is credible to anyone who stops to examine the evidence carefully" And who are the right kind of people might I ask? On second thoughts, no need to answer. It just won't do to argue this this way, friend -- credibly! Perhaps we can continue the discussion tomorrow. It's late here and I'm sleepy. Be safe.

I hold that the objectionable claim you're alluding to, roughly -- science has nothing to do with truth -- is nonsense, no matter which interpretation of "truth" we adopt: (i) yours = empirical adequacy, or (ii) mine = good old fashioned common or garden truth. But you're off topic, Swansont. Perhaps you might split yourself off into a separate thread -- as you invariably do to me. Thanks ajb With respect, I must disagree on grounds of fairness. Not credible? -- To whom? They clearly find it perfectly credible. Not consistent? -- please explain Not repeatable? -- they see the same (what they deem to be) evidence day in day out: birds singing, flowers blooming... you name it Not objective? -- according to what standard?

The atmosphere of acrimony under which this discussion is unfolding is unfortunate. There's no need for it. May we all please try to be civil to one another? John, let's start with some basics, ok? 1. As I made clear earlier, I don't believe in any god or gods. I don't believe there are good reasons for believing in them, at least in this day and age. I'm not defending religion and I'm not attacking science. It's my personal opinion that scientists have much better reasons than religious people for believing the things they do. That said, to hold yourself to one standard, and your adversaries to another, is simply unfair. Surely we can agree on this much? All I'm really asking from yourself, and everyone else, is consistency. 2. We must recognize that the word "evidence" is used in various ways. Peter Achenstein, for example, in his excellent "The Book of Evidence" identifies four distinct usages of the term in the domain of science. Moving on... Now, at the most basic level, if we simply take evidence (let's call it evidence1) to be "reasons for believing", we have no dispute to speak of. Scientists have their evidence, and the religious folks have theirs -- no one presumably believes what they do for no reason. A claim such as "We believe we have good evidence" is entirely uncontroversial. On the other hand, when yourself, or anyone else, advances a claim of the form... We have evidence; they don't ... clearly you're going beyond the basic interpretation of the term. Evidence (let's call it evidence2) has now apparently transcended mere reasons for belief, and an implicit appeal is made to an objective standard that your own evidence satisfies and theirs doesn't. I'd like to know what that standard is. Surely this is not an unreasonable request? Is the standard simply science itself? If scientists say it's evidence then it's evidence? If not, will you please begin by specifying for us the precise nature of the relationship between evidence2 and theory, so that all of us can determine for ourselves who has it and who doesn't. Afterwards we can carry on from there. Thanks (I can warn you in advance, if you're not already aware, that philosophers of science have labored over this problem for decades. Surprise, surprise -- they have not attained a consensus.)

Yes, you're right, that was silly of me. I'd hereby like to apologize for my meta-meta-meta response (post 13) to iNow's meta-meta advice (post 12) regarding my meta-analysis (post 11). My meta and meta-meta-meta were immature, irrelevant, deplorable, and should be disregarded. His original meta-meta and subsequent meta-meta-meta-meta (post 14) were poignant, relevant, plorable, and stand as a paragon of, er, something. All passengers are now requested to sit back and enjoy the rest of the flight. Thank you for flying with Apathy Airlines

Time permitting, I'll address any criticisms as best and as honestly as I can. It may well be, in some or many cases, that I have no good answer to offer, after all, I'm not claiming any special expertise. What I've largely done so far is simply expose inconsistencies in and among other posters' comments, not push any agenda of my own. What I won't do is address belligerent and abusive posters. I'm genuinely interested in learning and sharing information. I have no interest whatsoever in fighting.

To all it may concern, The poster above has, for some weeks now, and for reasons not entirely clear to me, dedicated himself to a campaign of character assassination against myself. There's little I can do about this -- staff seem either unwilling or unable to intervene -- and I refuse to reciprocate the mudslinging of my assailant, not to mention the infantile but incessant broadside of "-1" reputation points (this site's substitute for a voodoo doll and pins?) . I also refuse to address said poster directly. The purpose of this message is to alert other members, who may be unaware of the situation, such that they might be less inclined to accept this poster's scurrilous defamation attempts at face value. Whether or not I stand guilty of -- inter alia -- arrogance, stupidity, habitually "twisting other people's words", gratuitous troublemaking, fallacious argumentation, rambling incoherently, and a thousand other alleged transgressions is a matter I hope you will each have the integrity to appraise impartially for yourselves. Thank you Colin

Ok, but this seems to imply epiphenomenalism (i.e. the position that consciousness is causally inert). Physical events in the brain are causally responsible for our actions, and also for our phenomenal consciousness, but consciousness itself causes nothing. Of course, there are people who advocate this seemingly implausible and hugely counter-intuitive view (my conscious deliberations have no effect on my actions - it's an illusion). I'm just wondering if you recognize the implications of what you've just proposed.

Agreed. I added some more to my previous post before I saw your latest, MonDie.

Well, confusion is always a possibility. But who says brain events (electrical currents) cause consciousness? Not everybody to be sure. Proponents of the psychophysical identity theory, for example, hold that mental states/events are not caused by brain states; they are brain states. If you're claiming yourself that brain states cause conscious, then more difficult questions arise. Start with this one: Can mental states also cause brain states? Supposing, for example,my thought (a mental event) that I'd like a cup of tea results in my getting up off my butt and heading for the kitchen (a physical event), what exactly caused my movement?: (i) my thought that I'd like a cup of tea (ii) the brain state associated with that thought (iii) both (iii) spells causal overdetermination and that's bad news. Or (i) caused (ii), and (ii) caused the movement? But then (i) would appear to be non-physical, right? And that spells bad news for physicalism and its central tenet that we live in a causally-closed universe (i.e. no outside interference from non-physical spooks).

Everyone, yourself included, has evaded my questions in the post (#21) you're responding to here. Perhaps it was the apoplectic hammering of the "-1" reputation key that distracted them from the substantive content. I must ask you to clarify: Are you telling us that lightning was merely considered to be evidence for Thor, or that it was not only considered to be so, but really was so? If it's the former, then no one is in any position to make the unqualified claim "We have lots of evidence supporting the theory of natural selection". What they can claim unobjectionably is "We believe we have lots of evidence...."; after all, we might turn out to be quite wrong, as we presumably were about Thor. If it's the latter, then John Cuthber's claim that there is no evidence for God is simply untrue. Please acknowledge. Incorrect. Intelligent design has been judged unscientific in court proceedings and thus ineligible for inclusion in the school science curriculum. The legality of the issue hinges not upon ID or evolutionary theory being true, possibly true, or a load of bollocks; but upon their scientific status.