Popper, Confirmation, and Evidence (split from "Is religion being picked on?")

[Reg Prescott]

I asked for citations - you came up with secondary (and maybe even tertiary) commentaries. I certainly have formed my conclusion.

 

As is your right, sir.

[Ophiolite]

I don't see why your post merited a negative rep. I have counteracted it.

[Reg Prescott]

I don't see why your post merited a negative rep. I have counteracted it.

 

Thanks for that. You ain't so bad.

 

I'm perfectly willing to admit I could be quite wrong about the continental drift thing, Ophiolite; it just doesn't seem so important that I spending hours researching the case. I'll happily withdraw the disputed remark if you like, although it might be interesting and educational to hear what those members more knowledgable than myself -- yourself included -- have to say on the matter. To repeat what I said in an earlier post (#95):

 

"Getting back to continental drift, I'm not a geologist, nor am I particularly inclined to spend hours in the library or on the Internet investigating the debacle. It might be easier if I simply delete the sentence in post 91 that Ophiolite finds problematic. Would you like me to do that, Ophiolite? Or leave it there, with your objection duly noted, and allow other members to decide for themselves?"

[moth]

 

Ha ha!

 

Erm, Conures?

 

 

Green-cheeked, affectionate, little tormentor and poop-machine Conures. Inherited from a long lost roomie.

 

I tried to come up with a reason god was not a satisfying hypothesis, but it was an emotional appeal about a shrinking god of the gaps who seems incompatable with most diests claims of everywhere, always.

and my brain hurts, maybe tomorrow.

 

 

[ajb]

ajb has been trying valiantly to help out, but the criteria he's offered so far (repeatability of observation et al) amount to only necessary conditions for evidential acceptance, giving us some clues as to what might get kept out, but telling us nothing whatsoever about what gets let in.

Ruling what not to include as evidence is probably the best way to get an idea of what is evidence. In essence, what is not ruled out by my basic criteria (of course I make no claim of originality here) can then go on to be considered by the experts in the particular field in question. They then may decide the evidence is weak or strong depending on whatever criteria they further require.

 

In general we do not want to be totally rigid in what we admit or dismiss, but there has to be some basic level of quality to the evidence and this I think is covered by the criteria I set out.

[Ophiolite]

I think your comment should remain. As a matter of principle, on all forums, I am opposed to editing posts other than for clarity, or typographical/grammatical errors.

 

It is a common belief that Wegner was ridiculed for his theory. I have little doubt that some individuals did ridicule him¹. What I was challenging was the myth, implicit in your post, that this was more or less an across-the-board, no-exceptions, ridicule. It is precisely because I recognise that you would have neither the time, nor the inclination to investigate the claim thoroughly (a perfectly valid position) that I made the correction.

 

 

1. Completely off topic, I love the remark of the English comedian Bob Monkhouse: "They laughed when I said I wanted to be a stand-up comedian. They're not laughing now."

[Reg Prescott]

Today's thrilling episode, ladies and gentlemen, will consist of a sample quote to consider, a definition, three questions for you, dear reader, a travel advisory, and an allegory. Something for all the family.

a Quote

----------

"Your evidence is no good. Let us know when you find some actual evidence for God and we might take you seriously." - anon

Questions 1 & 2 : Have you ever seen a comment like this on this website? Have you ever made a comment like this yourself?

a Definition

---------------

Methodological Naturalism (MN) : The principle that science should not invoke the supernatural. Only naturalistic explanations are legitimate; appeal must not be made to divine agency, no matter what is observed. This is a principle to guide the conduct of scientific investigation; it has nothing whatsoever to say about the EXISTENCE of putative supernatural entities such as God.

Q3 : Are you a methodological naturalist?

a Travel Advisory

----------------------

Earlier this year I had the pleasure of doing a little travelling in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. A warning, though, regarding cash for anyone out there planning a trip to the Central Asian republics: US dollars and euros are the most widely accepted currencies, but bring only the the most recent edition banknotes in pristine condition, or as close to as possible. Don't even bend them! The moneychangers, and even the banks there, are notoriously picky. Any banknote not meeting their lofty standards is likely to be tossed unceremoniously straight back at you.

A Story : "Bishkek Blues"

-------------------------------

It's Laura's first day in Bishkek, and she needs Kyrgyzstani som. Fortunately there are several moneychangers close to her hotel, so she sets off armed with a wad of American greenbacks. "Honest Bob's" is the first moneychanger's she walks into, where she explains that she'd like to convert USD to KGS. Before even reaching into her purse, however, she's told:

"Sorry, miss. We don't accept American dollars here. Euros, Sterling, and Rubles are fine. If dollars is all you've got, try Finicky Frank's next door."

Slightly disappointed, Laura nonetheless thanks the polite young man and heads next door as advised, noticing as she leaves, a sign on the wall announcing, "USD Not Accepted". Next door Frank himself greets her, confirms that he does indeed accept American currency, and asks to see the banknotes. Laura hands over five one-hundred dollar bills for examination.

"Your money's no good. Come back when you've got some decent dollars."

Decent dollars? What could Frank possibly mean, wonders Laura. Frank explains:

"Your banknotes are both old and crumpled. We have high standards here. We can't accept rubbish like this. If you come back with latest edition American banknotes in good condition perhaps we can do business. Just like that old geezer over there is doing right now."

Laura, although none too impressed with Frank's attitude, observes that there is indeed an "old geezer" at the counter being issued local currency in exchange for his well-looked-after and youthful greenbacks. Frank at least is a man of his word, even if his manners leave something to be desired.

The third moneychanger's Laura walks into is MN Enterprises. Once again, Laura explains she'd like to exchange US dollars for local som. The clerk asks to see the bills. After a cursory examination, he shakes his head and frowns:

"Your money's no good. Come back when you've got some decent dollars."

Our hapless heroine will come to learn that this is a familiar tune indeed throughout the Central Asian republics! A dejected Laura stuffs her unwanted cash back in her purse, and as she walks towards the door, a sign on the wall catches her eye, "USD Not Accepted".

Laura raises an eyebrow...

"Why did he ask to see my banknotes, as if there was a chance they might be accepted, when it was a foregone conclusion that they would not be?"

"Why is he asking me to come back when I've got some decent dollars, as if the fault lies with me for bringing dollar bills that fail to meet certain standards, when dollars of any kind must be rejected as a consequence of his own store's policy?"

Edited November 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[moth]

If i understand your analogy, Laura can show her wrinkled pennies;
She can't show her feelings about anything. She can describe her feelings, and i might think i feel the same thing. but do i?
how do you standardize feelings?

[Reg Prescott]

If i understand your analogy, Laura can show her wrinkled pennies;

She can't show her feelings about anything. She can describe her feelings, and i might think i feel the same thing. but do i?

how do you standardize feelings?

 

Now I'm really confused.

 

Can you explain a little more, Moth?

 

The point I was trying to make in the Allegory of the Laura is that it's at once futile and inconsistent for any science apologist to dismiss the putative evidence adduced by the religious as not up to standard if no such evidence (i.e. that which purportedly supports supernatural causes) can be "up to standard".

[moth]

i think a method is needed to distinguish between supernatural and natural but unknown.