|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 29, 2014 1:27:45 GMT -5
Where is this book 'Labyrinths of the Mind' by William Poundstone?
I can't find it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2014 3:25:15 GMT -5
Where is this book 'Labyrinths of the Mind' by William Poundstone?
I can't find it Dmg, the book Whathat is referring to may be 'Labyrinths of Reason'. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 29, 2014 10:45:00 GMT -5
Only agnostic's are rational? ohoh, did you hear that Rational? I'm rational! .... Yes, actually rational is irrational.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 29, 2014 10:52:11 GMT -5
Only agnostic's are rational? ohoh, did you hear that Rational? I'm rational! .... Yes, actually rational is irrational. I guess I question what is so irrational about not believing in the supernatural? I don't believe, I also leave room for possibilities I have no understanding about. But I don't see a non belief in an afterlife as irrational. Based on all current evidence, we do appear to not have a life after physical death.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 29, 2014 11:07:07 GMT -5
First of all, positions that there is or isn't an after-life are not equally rational. In fact, both positions are not rational at all, but irrational and unscientific. Sorry if I led you astray on that. It's not easy to describe falsifiability in a post or two, but wikipedia has an article on it. I recommend also a book called 'Labyrinths of the Mind' by William Poundstone which gets into some of these concepts. The "98% certainty" is based purely on faith and feeling. My position, as I mentioned, is an irrational one. Beyond that feeling about life I cannot tell you much more. Just tonight I learned that a very close relative who recently died appeared to his three adult children in independent dreams one night and told them everything was "going to be okay" and he was okay where he was.
Interesting because this relative was an avowed atheist. Does this prove anything? Not really. However,my scale just moved from 98% to 99%. You can drop back to your 98% scale. Dreams are a common grief reactions
Auditory or Visual Hallucinations are as well, doesn't matter whether you are religious or an atheist.
After all, dreams are a product of the mind and there is nothing supernatural about them.
So why wouldn't you have dreams of the person who died? Actual day-time hallucinations concerning them are even common, so why should dreams be different?
I still maintain that a non-belief in an "after-Life" is totally rational. There has never been any proof of any after-life whatsoever. There has never been anyone that died & returned to tell us there was.
(Christianity's belief in Jesus return from the dead doesn't count-because it is part of a supernatural belief. If you think that it is proof then you will have to count all the other supposed supernatural belief myths that are not of Christianity)
"There has never been any proof of any after-life whatsoever." There has never been any proof that there is no after-life either. But the important point is that there is no means of determining whether there is or there isn't. Thus neither position is purely rational. But I have some empathy for your comment on being "totally rational". I know atheists who effectively say, I'm going to limit my life concerns and knowledge to those things that can be determined purely by rational means. That is how I interpret your phrase "totally rational". The interesting thing to me is that there is no rational proof that going "totally rational" in this manner is entirely rational; it's basically still a life philosophy at heart. I also respect that there could be sound utilitarian reasons for so doing, given the damage that religions can cause: intellectually and physically. In your last paragraph you make an error in assuming that my statement that atheism is irrational constitutes some kind of defence of religion. All I'm saying is that atheism is a philosophical position that lies outside the interests of science and outside the bounds of rational thought, for that matter. This does not mean that atheism is just another religion. Not at all. Religions generally do contain a body of beliefs which are falsifiable and on the balance of evidence should not be believed. So in that sense an atheistic position embodies less irrationality than any given religious system. But I go back to this idea - that any strong assertion about an after-life, either for or against, is irrational, because such statements are not falsifiable.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 29, 2014 11:15:18 GMT -5
As I mentioned, there is no scientific theory relating to communication with a dead person. However, there are plenty of theories relating to space travel. That is a logical fallacy argument. There is no comparison between the two.
I have no idea what you're saying. The following statement is falsifiable: I. There are "flying spaghetti monsters" living on Alpha Centauri. The following statement is not falsifiable: II. There is (or is not) an after-life. Gene supposed that because you could talk to a dead man "in theory" that the statement II was falsifiable, but he fell into a common trap on what "in theory" means. "In theory" does not mean "purely suppositional", it means "according to scientific theory". If you don't see why statement I is falsifiable versus statement II, then I urge you to read at least part of the following article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 29, 2014 11:40:44 GMT -5
Yes, actually rational is irrational. I guess I question what is so irrational about not believing in the supernatural? I don't believe, I also leave room for possibilities I have no understanding about. But I don't see a non belief in an afterlife as irrational. Based on all current evidence, we do appear to not have a life after physical death. "A non-belief in an afterlife" is a different thing from "a belief that there is NO after-life". The former is just a refusal to accept any positive conjecture about the after-life - you're essentially saying "I don't know" - you're after-life agnostic. The latter is making a strong statement that there is NO after-life. How can you really know that for sure? Only by taking an irrational position, one that has no evidence. I may be getting myself in trouble in terms of "rationality" versus "falsifiability". There is writing and philosophical argument on this subject which is beyond my knowledge or interest. What I DO feel certain about is the restricted domain of science, what philosophers call the demarcation between the scientific and the unscientific, which is based on whether a theory or set of statements or concern is falsifiable or not falsifiable. This cuts both ways. I've been trying to make the point that "science" can not decide for us whether there is or is not an after-life. But at the same time, religion can not intrude into areas such as how the Earth or the Universe evolved. Here is an example. Recently, an ex-pastor accused me of being close-minded because I was not interested in looking at his evidence (on the web somewhere) of humans and dinosaurs co-habiting the Earth. I find that religionists of one kind or another wish to intrude into the processes of science from an essentially irrational perspective. I'm not interested in even looking at theories that work outside of science (i.e. from the book of Genesis) and then intrude into science.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 29, 2014 12:02:57 GMT -5
First of all, positions that there is or isn't an after-life are not equally rational. In fact, both positions are not rational at all, but irrational and unscientific. Sorry if I led you astray on that. It's not easy to describe falsifiability in a post or two, but wikipedia has an article on it. I recommend also a book called 'Labyrinths of the Mind' by William Poundstone which gets into some of these concepts. The "98% certainty" is based purely on faith and feeling. My position, as I mentioned, is an irrational one. Beyond that feeling about life I cannot tell you much more. Just tonight I learned that a very close relative who recently died appeared to his three adult children in independent dreams one night and told them everything was "going to be okay" and he was okay where he was. Interesting because this relative was an avowed atheist. Does this prove anything? Not really. However,my scale just moved from 98% to 99%. Whathat, this is nonsense. Matt10 I should not have even tried to address your post. Basically, I'm questioning your use of the term 'equally rational' which makes no sense to me. When statements are irrational, their relative rationality can not be measured.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 29, 2014 17:55:33 GMT -5
I have no idea what you're saying.
The following statement is falsifiable: I. There are "flying spaghetti monsters" living on Alpha Centauri. The following statement is not falsifiable: II. There is (or is not) an after-life. Gene supposed that because you could talk to a dead man "in theory" that the statement II was falsifiable, but he fell into a common trap on what "in theory" means. "In theory" does not mean "purely suppositional", it means "according to scientific theory". If you don't see why statement I is falsifiable versus statement II, then I urge you to read at least part of the following article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability You are comparing two unrelated subjects. That is a logical fallacy argument. "no scientific theory relating to communication with a dead person. However, there are plenty of theories relating to space travel."T here is no comparison between the two. You admit that one is NOT scientific theory & the other is, so how can you even compare them under a "scientific theories?"
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 29, 2014 18:11:37 GMT -5
I have no idea what you're saying.
The following statement is falsifiable: I. There are "flying spaghetti monsters" living on Alpha Centauri. The following statement is not falsifiable: II. There is (or is not) an after-life. Gene supposed that because you could talk to a dead man "in theory" that the statement II was falsifiable, but he fell into a common trap on what "in theory" means. "In theory" does not mean "purely suppositional", it means "according to scientific theory". If you don't see why statement I is falsifiable versus statement II, then I urge you to read at least part of the following article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability You are comparing two unrelated subjects. That is a logical fallacy argument. "no scientific theory relating to communication with a dead person. However, there are plenty of theories relating to space travel."T here is no comparison between the two. You admit that one is NOT scientific theory & the other is, so how can you even compare them under a "scientific theories?"
Okay, there is no comparison between the two. So what? You've lost me. Maybe you could tell me which statement of mine you are arguing with.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 29, 2014 19:41:20 GMT -5
That is a logical fallacy argument. There is no comparison between the two.
I have no idea what you're saying. The following statement is falsifiable: I. There are "flying spaghetti monsters" living on Alpha Centauri. The following statement is not falsifiable: II. There is (or is not) an after-life. Gene supposed that because you could talk to a dead man "in theory" that the statement II was falsifiable, but he fell into a common trap on what "in theory" means. "In theory" does not mean "purely suppositional", it means "according to scientific theory". If you don't see why statement I is falsifiable versus statement II, then I urge you to read at least part of the following article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FalsifiabilityI see what you're saying, What Hat. Thank you for explaining falsifiability. I think the interplay you've proposed between what is falsifiable and what is rational is... well... rational. G
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 29, 2014 19:54:41 GMT -5
I have no idea what you're saying. The following statement is falsifiable: I. There are "flying spaghetti monsters" living on Alpha Centauri. The following statement is not falsifiable: II. There is (or is not) an after-life. Gene supposed that because you could talk to a dead man "in theory" that the statement II was falsifiable, but he fell into a common trap on what "in theory" means. "In theory" does not mean "purely suppositional", it means "according to scientific theory". If you don't see why statement I is falsifiable versus statement II, then I urge you to read at least part of the following article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FalsifiabilityI see what you're saying, What Hat. Thank you for explaining falsifiability. I think the interplay you've proposed between what is falsifiable and what is rational is... well... rational. G Thanks gene, maybe I can understand What Hat means, but then again I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 29, 2014 20:33:42 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, What Hat. Thank you for explaining falsifiability. I think the interplay you've proposed between what is falsifiable and what is rational is... well... rational. G Thanks gene, maybe I can understand What Hat means, but then again I'm not so sure. You are comparing two unrelated subjects. That is a logical fallacy argument. "no scientific theory relating to communication with a dead person. However, there are plenty of theories relating to space travel."T here is no comparison between the two. You admit that one is NOT scientific theory & the other is, so how can you even compare them under a "scientific theories?" Okay, there is no comparison between the two. So what?You've lost me. Maybe you could tell me which statement of mine you are arguing with. To go back to the beginning: You said, "Yes, well I would like you to describe how you would test and prove the hypothesis that there is no after-life. The only correct purely rational answer is that the question is not decideable."My statement that there is no "after-life" is not a belief per se, but simply a non-belief. How can a person test and prove the hypothesis for a non-belief?
If I Had never heard the idea by some people that there is an "afterlife," -I would still have had the same idea because it would just have existed already since there wasn't/isn't any evidence TO believe that there was an "after-life."
It wouldn't even have occurred to me to even think about it one way or the other since there wasn't/isn't any evidence for an "after -life."
That is a perfectly rational way of looking at something for which there is no evidence!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 30, 2014 0:18:47 GMT -5
Thanks gene, maybe I can understand What Hat means, but then again I'm not so sure. Okay, there is no comparison between the two. So what?You've lost me. Maybe you could tell me which statement of mine you are arguing with. To go back to the beginning: You said, "Yes, well I would like you to describe how you would test and prove the hypothesis that there is no after-life. The only correct purely rational answer is that the question is not decideable."My statement that there is no "after-life" is not a belief per se, but simply a non-belief. How can a person test and prove the hypothesis for a non-belief?
If I Had never heard the idea by some people that there is an "afterlife," -I would still have had the same idea because it would just have existed already since there wasn't/isn't any evidence TO believe that there was an "after-life."
It wouldn't even have occurred to me to even think about it one way or the other since there wasn't/isn't any evidence for an "after -life."
That is a perfectly rational way of looking at something for which there is no evidence!
To say you don't believe a thing is not simply a non-belief. There are only two possibilities. There is an after-life. There is no after-life. If you refute the possibility of an after-life, then aren't you saying, "there is no after life"? But there is no way to prove that there is one or that there isn't one. So you have made an irrational choice. If on the other hand, you were to say, "I don't know if there is an after life or not", then that is a rational response. Note that both believing in an after-life and denying an after-life are irrational. And that makes sense because from a scientific perspective 1) we don't know and 2) we have no way of finding out. There is nothing wrong with being irrational. Much of what we believe falls outside the realm of science. However, I've noticed that some atheists claim that they hold the higher ground on rationality, and that the existence of God is disproved by science. It is not.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 30, 2014 1:26:01 GMT -5
To go back to the beginning: You said, "Yes, well I would like you to describe how you would test and prove the hypothesis that there is no after-life. The only correct purely rational answer is that the question is not decideable."My statement that there is no "after-life" is not a belief per se, but simply a non-belief. How can a person test and prove the hypothesis for a non-belief?
If I Had never heard the idea by some people that there is an "afterlife," -I would still have had the same idea because it would just have existed already since there wasn't/isn't any evidence TO believe that there was an "after-life."
It wouldn't even have occurred to me to even think about it one way or the other since there wasn't/isn't any evidence for an "after -life."
That is a perfectly rational way of looking at something for which there is no evidence!
To say you don't believe a thing is not simply a non-belief. There are only two possibilities. There is an after-life. There is no after-life. If you refute the possibility of an after-life, then aren't you saying, "there is no after life"? But there is no way to prove that there is one or that there isn't one. So you have made an irrational choice. If on the other hand, you were to say, "I don't know if there is an after life or not", then that is a rational response. Note that both believi ng in an after-life and denying an after-life are irrational. And that makes sense because from a scientific perspective 1) we don't know and 2) we have no way of finding out. There is nothing wrong with being irrational. Much of what we believe falls outside the realm of science. However, I've noticed that some atheists claim that they hold the higher ground on rationality, and that the existence of God is disproved by science. It is not. There wouldn't have been the idea of an "after-life" for anyone to even think about had religions not presented the idea!
So no, -for me there just ISN'T two possibilities!
There isn't any evidence for me to even contemplate there being an "after-life"
In other words I simply shouldn't even need to say, "There is no after-life."
In the rational way of thinking, when we don't see evidence for something existing, we don't even have to contemplate such a idea, let alone "deny" it!
For me to say, "I don't know if there is an after life or not," would be a irrational statement!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 30, 2014 9:49:57 GMT -5
To say you don't believe a thing is not simply a non-belief. There are only two possibilities. There is an after-life. There is no after-life. If you refute the possibility of an after-life, then aren't you saying, "there is no after life"? But there is no way to prove that there is one or that there isn't one. So you have made an irrational choice. If on the other hand, you were to say, "I don't know if there is an after life or not", then that is a rational response. Note that both believi ng in an after-life and denying an after-life are irrational. And that makes sense because from a scientific perspective 1) we don't know and 2) we have no way of finding out. There is nothing wrong with being irrational. Much of what we believe falls outside the realm of science. However, I've noticed that some atheists claim that they hold the higher ground on rationality, and that the existence of God is disproved by science. It is not. There wouldn't have been the idea of an "after-life" for anyone to even think about had religions not presented the idea!
That simply isn't correct. There are many non-religious people who either believe in an after-life, or are open to the possibility of an after-life. It's a fascinating subject, wouldn't you say? Here are the two possibilities I see: 1. There is an after-life. 2. There is no after-life. Pleas identify the third possibility that does not subset these two. [/b][/font]
[/quote] [/quote] Nice try. I think you resent the idea of your view being an irrational one when you consider yourself to be a rational person. Look at rational; he even takes the name 'rational' when his life view is based on a fundamentally irrational position. Actually, I think you're both very rational people, but if there is a lesson from this it is that to be totally committed to only what science can tell you, that is, to only the ideas and thoughts that are rational, is fundamentally an irrational position. With apologies to the bard, "there are more things in this world, dmmichgood, than are dreamt of by your rationality".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2014 10:43:15 GMT -5
There are many causes and effects for which there exists at least initially, no evidence to explain them. This is what triggers the mind to seek out evidence for those things in order to arrive at an understanding. Creation/evolution (take your pick) is just one of those things.
Explanation comes from investigation for evidence which can be said to be (adapted from legal definition): "all (legal) means, exclusive of mere argument, which tends to prove the truth of a subject under (judicial) examination."
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 30, 2014 10:58:09 GMT -5
There are many causes and effects for which there exists at least initially, no evidence to explain them. This is what triggers the mind to seek out evidence for those things in order to arrive at an understanding. Creation/evolution (take your pick) is just one of those things. Explanation comes from investigation for evidence which can be said to be (adapted from legal definition): "all (legal) means, exclusive of mere argument, which tends to prove the truth of a subject under (judicial) examination." This is an entertaining site on spurious correlation. Sometimes patterns are just patterns. www.tylervigen.com/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2014 11:38:41 GMT -5
There are many causes and effects for which there exists at least initially, no evidence to explain them. This is what triggers the mind to seek out evidence for those things in order to arrive at an understanding. Creation/evolution (take your pick) is just one of those things. Explanation comes from investigation for evidence which can be said to be (adapted from legal definition): "all (legal) means, exclusive of mere argument, which tends to prove the truth of a subject under (judicial) examination." This is an entertaining site on spurious correlation. Sometimes patterns are just patterns. www.tylervigen.com/Yes this is true, but a brief investigation would show these "correlations" to be mere coincidences. Although the truth of the matter in these cases is obvious from the outset, an enquiring mind would quickly confirm that.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 30, 2014 11:44:14 GMT -5
This is an entertaining site on spurious correlation. Sometimes patterns are just patterns. www.tylervigen.com/Yes this is true, but a brief investigation would show these "correlations" to be mere coincidences. Although the truth of the matter in these cases is obvious from the outset, an enquiring mind would quickly confirm that. Ahh but some people would also say 'there is no such thing as a coincidence'. All things 'happen for a reason'. Nothing in life 'is an accident'. etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 30, 2014 12:32:28 GMT -5
Yes this is true, but a brief investigation would show these "correlations" to be mere coincidences. Although the truth of the matter in these cases is obvious from the outset, an enquiring mind would quickly confirm that. I suspect a few gods were created, and beliefs strenghten by the pareidolia effect. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af1kWzTbIjo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2014 12:52:28 GMT -5
Yes this is true, but a brief investigation would show these "correlations" to be mere coincidences. Although the truth of the matter in these cases is obvious from the outset, an enquiring mind would quickly confirm that. Ahh but some people would also say 'there is no such thing as a coincidence'. All things 'happen for a reason'. Nothing in life 'is an accident'. etc. etc. Well it rains on the righteous as well as the unrighteous. Coincidence? Nothing in life is an accident or chance so they say!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 30, 2014 14:06:03 GMT -5
Ahh but some people would also say 'there is no such thing as a coincidence'. All things 'happen for a reason'. Nothing in life 'is an accident'. etc. etc. Well it rains on the righteous as well as the unrighteous. Coincidence? Nothing in life is an accident or chance so they say! What about Luke 10:31? And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Okay, seriously though - Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2014 14:43:18 GMT -5
Well it rains on the righteous as well as the unrighteous. Coincidence? Nothing in life is an accident or chance so they say! What about Luke 10:31? And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Okay, seriously though - Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Lesson 1: Don't listen to "They!"
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 30, 2014 15:28:40 GMT -5
What about Luke 10:31? And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Okay, seriously though - Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Lesson 1: Don't listen to "They!"
No, but sometimes I listen to "Them".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2014 15:35:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 30, 2014 15:55:25 GMT -5
There wouldn't have been the idea of an "after-life" for anyone to even think about had religions not presented the idea!
That simply isn't correct. There are many non-religious people who either believe in an after-life, or are open to the possibility of an after-life. It's a fascinating subject, wouldn't you say?Here are the two possibilities I see: 1. There is an after-life. 2. There is no after-life.
Pleas identify the third possibility that does not subset these two.
Nice try. I think you resent the idea of your view being an irrational one when you consider yourself to be a rational person. Look at rational; he even takes the name 'rational' when his life view is based on a fundamentally irrational position. Actually, I think you're both very rational people, but if there is a lesson from this it is that to be totally committed to only what science can tell you, that is, to only the ideas and thoughts that are rational, is fundamentally an irrational position. With apologies to the bard, "there are more things in this world, dmmichgood, than are dreamt of by your rationality". Whathat, you say: "That simply isn't correct. There are many non-religious people who either believe in an after-life, or are open to the possibility of an after-life.
In order to believe in an "afterlife" someone must believe in the "paranormal," "supernatural."
you say: "Here are the two possibilities I see: 1. There is an after-life. 2. There is no after-life."Now you are using the False Dilemma logical fallacy
(also known as: false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)
As I said before I really don't, shouldn't, need to make either decision, just because YOU have to do so!
you say,
"I think you resent the idea of your view being an irrational one when you consider yourself to be a rational person. "
You are quite welcome to think whatever you want about me if it helps you solve your problem.
Yes indeed you should apologize to the bard, since this is really what the bard said.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 30, 2014 15:58:27 GMT -5
[Badly chopped up post- see above. Unfortunately I can not copy it here. ...What hat] No, it is not a false dichotomy. It is an actual dichotomy. There really are only the two possibilities. There is no middle ground on this question. If there is, you should be able to provide me with a third possibility. In terms of a decision though you have three possibilities, not two. I agree with (1). I agree with (2). I don't know or defer making a decision. It's not all that difficult, dmmichgood. The essential point is that you cannot prove that there is or is not an after-life, thus no absolute position is rationally possible. I've been reading more on falsifiability and critical rationalism in terms of this debate, and the other interesting point is that science has to be based and is limited to theories and statements based on empirical evidence. Not sure if that helps or not.
|
|