Comments on: first, let’s agree on our standards http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/2009/07/12/first-lets-agree-on-our-standards/ Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:56:38 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: mikhailovich http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/2009/07/12/first-lets-agree-on-our-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-542 mikhailovich Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:59:25 +0000 http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/?p=525#comment-542 A few opening points: 1. "Looking for proof", as you said, is a misnomer. I've written quite a bit about the impossibility of proof or absolute certainty. What we're looking for is the preponderance of evidence to reach a justified conclusion, etc., etc. 2. Because of this, no epistemology is flawless. Yet not being able to know everything does not prevent us from distinguishing helpful systems from somewhat helpful ones from utterly useless ones. My epistemology could be predicated on the belief that everything reported in the Epic of Gilgamesh is absolute truth. Helpful? No. And indistinguishable from a similar reliance on the Bible. 3. The scientific method is not limited to what can be empirically observed <em>right now</em>. This is what allows fields like paleontology or even geology to exist. To use your example, there are multiple lines of evidence that would inform us about the type of tornado that moved through an area after it had dissipated, not least among which would be the fact that we've observed other tornadoes in the past, know their effects and causes, and most importantly--know they exist. This is why defining standards is important. Even if a tornado whipped through an area and nobody saw it, determining what happened would not be a controversial process. E.g., we'd both probably rule out aliens. We would agree that our knowledge of a tornado's effects, along with precedent and a study of the antecedent environmental conditions, is enough to reach a justified conclusion about what happened. We would agree that our standards of evidence had been met. And what's more, the scientific method <em>always</em> allows for the possibility that we might have reached an incorrect conclusion. Where we disagree, however, is on what standards of evidence are required to accept certain religious claims. You are necessarily engaged in special pleading if you choose to accept the Bible as authoritative. (Again, I've written extensively on that topic previously.) I can't handle that cognitive dissonance. And in this area, at least, my standards are more reasonable; you've lowered your standards for accepting the Bible in a way that you would never lower them for another religious text, or for any other claim about reality. The very fact that we would have to discuss what evidence is required to accept a claim as true demonstrates the importance of defining our standards. A few opening points:

1. “Looking for proof”, as you said, is a misnomer. I’ve written quite a bit about the impossibility of proof or absolute certainty. What we’re looking for is the preponderance of evidence to reach a justified conclusion, etc., etc.

2. Because of this, no epistemology is flawless. Yet not being able to know everything does not prevent us from distinguishing helpful systems from somewhat helpful ones from utterly useless ones. My epistemology could be predicated on the belief that everything reported in the Epic of Gilgamesh is absolute truth. Helpful? No. And indistinguishable from a similar reliance on the Bible.

3. The scientific method is not limited to what can be empirically observed right now. This is what allows fields like paleontology or even geology to exist. To use your example, there are multiple lines of evidence that would inform us about the type of tornado that moved through an area after it had dissipated, not least among which would be the fact that we’ve observed other tornadoes in the past, know their effects and causes, and most importantly–know they exist.

This is why defining standards is important. Even if a tornado whipped through an area and nobody saw it, determining what happened would not be a controversial process. E.g., we’d both probably rule out aliens. We would agree that our knowledge of a tornado’s effects, along with precedent and a study of the antecedent environmental conditions, is enough to reach a justified conclusion about what happened. We would agree that our standards of evidence had been met. And what’s more, the scientific method always allows for the possibility that we might have reached an incorrect conclusion.

Where we disagree, however, is on what standards of evidence are required to accept certain religious claims. You are necessarily engaged in special pleading if you choose to accept the Bible as authoritative. (Again, I’ve written extensively on that topic previously.) I can’t handle that cognitive dissonance. And in this area, at least, my standards are more reasonable; you’ve lowered your standards for accepting the Bible in a way that you would never lower them for another religious text, or for any other claim about reality.

The very fact that we would have to discuss what evidence is required to accept a claim as true demonstrates the importance of defining our standards.

]]> By: T. Tennent http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/2009/07/12/first-lets-agree-on-our-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-539 T. Tennent Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:15:11 +0000 http://www.steelcityskeptics.net/?p=525#comment-539 Your line of reasoning makes sense if you are looking for a candy bar on someone's desk, but is less than sufficient for larger questions of epistemology. Let us suppose, for example, that a tornado touches down on a small town and wipes out the entire village and then disappears. Let us forther suppose, for the sake of argument, that no one survived who "saw" it. The enquirer who is "looking for proof" of the tornado has to rely upon a secondary line of reasoning; namely, the effects of the tornado and, from that evidence, reason back to the proposition that a tornado did, indeed, pass through this area. There are many examples like this. God is not in the category of a "candy bar on the desk" and therefore cannot be "discovered" using this particular line of approach. God does not dwell in temporal or spatial categories and therefore the approach must be different. It is true that Christianity teaches that God became incarnate in Jesus Christ - i.e. God entered into temporality and spatiality and, for a season, the Subject of all existence became the object for us to examine, look at and touch (See, I John 1:1). Your line of reasoning makes sense if you are looking for a candy bar on someone’s desk, but is less than sufficient for larger questions of epistemology. Let us suppose, for example, that a tornado touches down on a small town and wipes out the entire village and then disappears. Let us forther suppose, for the sake of argument, that no one survived who “saw” it. The enquirer who is “looking for proof” of the tornado has to rely upon a secondary line of reasoning; namely, the effects of the tornado and, from that evidence, reason back to the proposition that a tornado did, indeed, pass through this area. There are many examples like this. God is not in the category of a “candy bar on the desk” and therefore cannot be “discovered” using this particular line of approach. God does not dwell in temporal or spatial categories and therefore the approach must be different. It is true that Christianity teaches that God became incarnate in Jesus Christ – i.e. God entered into temporality and spatiality and, for a season, the Subject of all existence became the object for us to examine, look at and touch (See, I John 1:1).

]]>