Can theists be rational?

[Ivor the Engineer]

...But based upon previous accounts of what reindeer can and cannot do, I think we are going to end up with a pile of very unhappy and broken reindeer at the foot of the World Trade Center.

Spot the fault in the design of this experiment.

 

[Bri]

Sorry, I have been busy the last several days and have missed much of the discussion. Forgive me if it's already moved on (although I doubt it), but lest I be accused of not answering questions...

It is the same as the "basis" that the scientists who went in search of Tiktaalik used. No more no less.

So you do know that Tiktaalik was found by accident, right? It wasn't like someone went out and started looking for something for which there was absolutely no evidence.

And THAT is the very same basis that SETI is using.

No, sorry. There is no evidence of aliens. SETI is looking for something of which there is absolutely no evidence.

What exactly does this have to do with archeology? Either way, you are special pleading.

What do ruins have to do with archeology? My point was that neither archeologists and paleontologists go looking for something for which there is no evidence.

Aliens have the same ability to confirm predictions and explain known observations as Tiktaalik. There is no difference. You are special pleading.

Nobody said anything about confirming predictions. What known observations would aliens confirm?

No, you have not. You've yet to address astrobiology, extrasolar planets, common elements, Abiogenesis and evolution (framework for biological and ET intelligent life).

So which of those are you claiming is compelling evidence that aliens are probable rather than just possible? Are you claiming that we know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on earth? Are you claiming that we know the probability that the same conditions occurred elsewhere?

When scientists went looking for Tiktaalik it was based on assumptions gathered from what they observed no different from SETI.

There was compelling evidence that a transitional form of fish existed between fish which lived about 380 million years ago and early tetrapods which lived about 365 million years ago. And there was compelling evidence that fossils might be found in the rock formed from late Devonian river sediments on Ellesmere Island. No such evidence of aliens.

The evidence forms the basis. It's inductive. We can infer from the evidence that there could be ET inteligent life the same way scientists used evidence to infer that the could be bones for a transitional form like Tiktaalik. No difference.

You have been using "basis" and "evidence" interchangeably when it suits you, but making some sort of distinction when it doesn't. You cannot form a basis for anything but a possibility without evidence, as is clear from your careful wording. Yes, there could be ET intelligent life based on extremely scant evidence (if you want to call it evidence at all). But there is no compelling evidence by which to form a basis for the belief that aliens exist.

There was compelling evidence that a transitional form of fish was probable before it was found. Scientists don't usually go searching for something for which there is no compelling evidence.

I'm happy to acknowledge the facts. You've yet to tell us what it is that archeologists and palentologists are doing that members of SETI are not doing. Your argument was one of function not of probability.

How long do I have to wait? Or will you retract that argument?

I already pointed out that most archeologists and paleontologists are looking for something for which there is evidence in order to test falsifiable hypotheses.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I hesitate to post but must say that I for one am very glad indeed that scientists collect data of all sorts in case it might come in useful, or so that, by looking at it from time to time, they can begin to form a hypothesis. How on earth are they supposed to come up with an idea out of the blue unless they have been observant and made notes?

I agree, I am also glad that scientists collect data. The problem is that scientists usually form a falsifiable hypothesis, and then collect evidence for or against that hypothesis. The problem with non-falsifiable hypotheses is that you can't ever disprove it. That's why an unfalsifiable hypothesis such as "aliens exist" or "a god exists" aren't usually considered scientific hypotheses. It would be a waste of time to search for evidence of a being that might not even exist when there is no compelling evidence that it does exist, there can be no compelling evidence that it doesn't exist, and (arguably) its existence wouldn't explain any known observations.

-Bri

 

[fls]

This sounds like the principle of parsimony in generating hypotheses rather than an actual null hypothesis. (I for one accept the idea that if the supernatural entity isn't necessary, you should reject it as an explanation, but I don't think that's actually a testable hypothesis.)

If something is beyond the laws of physics, and doesn't necessarily produce consistent, reproducible results, I don't think you can generate hypotheses from it.

Well, I was responding to a question about a metaphysical, rather than scientific, null hypothesis. My mirroring of the principle of parsimony was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I meant to promote the same idea that we have been discussing all along. Ideas directed towards explaining things are far more fruitful than looking for things for imaginary entities to explain.

Linda

 

[Bri]

I neither know nor don't know it. What I said was that I see no reason to suspect that there is anything special about our home. Why would there be?

Actually, what you said was:

Not completely no, but it is likely, given the vast stretch of the universe that there is nothing particularly special about our home.​

How do you know it is likely that there is nothing particularly special about our home? Specifically, do you know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on our planet, and do you know the probability of those conditions and events having occurred elsewhere?

If you're now changing your position from "it's likely" to "there's no reason to suspect otherwise" then you're closer, but still not entirely accurate. There is in fact reason to suspect that the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on our planet may have been specific to our planet. Did you read the article on the Rare Earth Hypothesis?

You've already been given the evidence repeatedly -- we know there are other planets; we have found nearly earth-sized planets recently. We know that water is common, and even exists on other planets in our solar system. So, the necessary conditions exist elsewhere, especially given the fact that they obviously exist here, and I still see no reason to suspect that what applies here is different from what applies throughout the rest of the universe.

So are you claiming that the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on this planet are just the size of the planet and water? No, the fact of the matter is that we don't know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on this planet, and there is reason to suspect that they were so specific that they may not have occurred elsewhere.

By not following rules.

What rules? Are you claiming that we know a set of rules that the universe must follow? You do realize that the "rules" are based on our observation of how the universe operates, not the other way around, right?

If it follows rules and can be explained by the mechanisms we see, then it is part of the same single substance and not dualism. Dualism -- we're talking substance dualism here, not the many other potential meanings of the word -- is not coherent because it must work by something other than an explainable mechanism.

So if we can't explain something, it must be incoherent? Really?

Who said anything about teapots orbitting Jupiter being irrational? I said they were an intentionally silly story.

So the belief that teapots orbit Jupiter is rational?

Working without the means of a mechanism through a completely unknowable means.

Then no, it would not require "magic" by that definition for a supernatural being to interact with the natural world. We may not know the mechanism, but it's not unknowable.

If a mechanism is involved, then it follows rules and it is part of our garden variety monism.

A mechanism may be involved, and it may follow rules, but that doesn't mean that we know or understand the mechanism or rules.

For there to be a second substance, that substance cannot interact through mechanistic means; it must do so through an unknowable "process" (where process is obviously the wrong word because it implies mechanism).

Where are you getting this from? Who says that a "second substance" cannot interact through "mechanistic" means or that we cannot know the process by which they interact?

If I meant impossible, I would have said impossible. I didn't. I said that dualism is logically possible. We cannot exclude it on logical grounds.

Then by what definition of "magic" do you claim that a supernatural being must interact with the natural world through "magic?"

But the way that we use the word substance, we cannot speak of a separate substance working through a theoretically explainable mechanism. It isn't an issue of us not knowing, but an issue of us not being able to know even in theory how it works.

What evidence do you have that we cannot possibly know even in theory how it works?

This substance that we know about works through rules; it interacts through mechanisms that can be known theoretically (even if we do not know them all now). A different substance would not interact in that way because, if it did, then it wouldn't be a separate substance -- it would just be an attribute of the same stuff we already know about.

The only option left is that it works through magic -- through some manner that we cannot know. That is where the rational/irrational angle fits in.

Wait...so your claim is that we cannot know how the supernatural interacts with the natural, because if we did it would no longer be supernatural, and that's why it must interact via "magic?" Does that really make sense to you?

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

No, sorry. There is no evidence of aliens.

Bri, the only problem here is that you are making a useless distinction between life on earth and life elsewhere (if it exists). So, really, life on earth IS evidence for alien life. It is evidence that it is possible in certain conditions, conditions which we know are very probable considering the number of stars.

(I'm not sure if I'm on Bri's ignore list, so I'd appreciate if someone quoted the bit above).

 

[Bri]

Again you refuse to answer the question. Why?

Do you not see the irony in insisting that I'm refusing to answer your question in a response to my answer to that question? RandFan, the fact that I didn't answer the way you wished I had answered is not the same as refusing to answer.

How is searching for dinosaur bones a falsifaible hypothesis in a way that SETI isn't?

paleontologists: looking for something for which there is compelling evidence in order to provide evidence for or against falsifiable hypotheses that explain known observations.

SETI: looking for something for which there is no compelling evidence in order to prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis that does not explain known observations.

Can you just focus and answer the question. You claim there is a difference. THERE ISN'T!!!!

You understand that putting something in bold, all caps, and with lots of exclamations points doesn't make it true, right?

And simply declaring that one is unfalsifiable and the other falsifiable is just flapping your gums.

You asked for a difference, and I provided several. I'm not sure what else you're looking for here.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

You are the one that made a lot to do of the Suprenatural being outside of the realm of science.

You asked me to provide a scientific theory of a god, and I said that there is no scientific theory of a god just as there is also no scientific theory of aliens.

You then made a big stink about no evidence of the moon being made of cheese.

No, I said that there is compelling evidence that the moon isn't made of cheese.

You are playing a game and I am exposing that game. Just as you can posit magical abilities for your unkown "god" I can posit magical abilities of the moon.

Sure you can. So what?

If you don't like the consequences of your logic then don't use it.

I have no problem with the consequences of my logic. I'm just wondering what your comments about the moon have to do with the discussion, since we were talking about things for which there is no compelling evidence, not about something for which there is compelling evidence against.

BTW: The basis for paleontologists is the same for SETI. It's based on inductive reasoning and an observation of the evidence.

What evidence has been observed that forms a basis for belief that aliens are probable?

Saying there is NO evidence doesn't make it so.

Once again, evidence of intelligent life is not evidence of extra terrestrial intelligent life any more than evidence of teapots is evidence of teapots orbiting Jupiter. The evidence you listed is not compelling evidence that extra terrestrial intelligent life exists.

Sorry but the moon and the evidence to cause SETI to infer the possibility of life is the same as the evidence that paleontologists use to infer the possibility of bones exist whether you like it or not.

The only evidence of aliens is that they are possible. There is compelling evidence that bones are more than just possible -- we know the conditions by which bones have been found previously and we know that those conditions are present elsewhere. We have many more than 1 example of bones from which to extrapolate.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

The problem is that there's no actual evidence of intelligent life anywhere but on Earth.

Ah, so there's evidence?

Yes, of course there's evidence of intelligent life on Earth. There is no evidence of intelligent life elsewhere.

Do you think, then, that SETI should stop looking?
If so, may I ask why?

I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject, but it does seem to be a waste of time and money. Searching for something for which there is no evidence, which is unfalsifiable, and which has no explanatory power is not really science though.

-Bri

 

[yy2bggggs]

Yes, of course there's evidence of intelligent life on Earth. There is no evidence of intelligent life elsewhere.

As there is no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[Bri]

1. According to Bri: The work that SETI (so-called) scientists are doing is NOT scientific.
2. According to Bri: The work that paleontologist and archaeologist perform IS scientific.
3. According to Bri: Paleontologists are trying to prove a falsifiable hypothesis.
4. According to Bri: SETI scientists (if they can be called that) are trying to prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Never mind the problems with contradictions between proving and falsifying. What is this falsifiable hypothesis of the paleontologists and how does that differ from the hypothesis of the SETI (so-called) scientists?

First, what problems with contradictions between proving and falsifying are you referring to? Second, your list is close, but not quite what I said.

Paleontologist and archaeologist search for bones and ruins for which there is evidence in order to provide further evidence to test falsifiable hypotheses that may explain known observations. SETI is searching for something for which there is no evidence in order to prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis that doesn't explain known observations.

According to Wikipedia:

SETI has also occasionally been the target of criticism by those who suggest that it is a form of pseudoscience. In particular, critics allege that no observed phenomena suggest the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and furthermore that the assertion of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence has no good Popperian criteria for falsifiability.​

-Bri

 

[Bri]

As there is no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow.

Of course there is.

-Bri

 

[GStan]

Bri, the only problem here is that you are making a useless distinction between life on earth and life elsewhere (if it exists). So, really, life on earth IS evidence for alien life. It is evidence that it is possible in certain conditions, conditions which we know are very probable considering the number of stars.

(I'm not sure if I'm on Bri's ignore list, so I'd appreciate if someone quoted the bit above).

Quite true. Life exists. It is evidence. The absence of evidence for life elsewhere in the universe is in no way equivalent to the absence of evidence for the supernatural, or a god. Belief in life elsewhere has a rational foundation. Belief in the supernatural, which is not known to exist ANYWHERE, is not analogous to belief in life elsewhere in the universe, since it is known to exist HERE ON EARTH.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Bri:

In saying that the sun will rise tomorrow, you're making an assumption that things which happened in the past will continue to happen in the future the same way. In saying that any of your data has to do with the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, you're making the same assumption.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Bri,

To decrease the amount of space I will compact all the replies to a few lines.

Yes, I am aware of the rare earth hypothesis. It's bascially people who give low numbers to all the options in the Drake equation. The idea seems incredibly parochial to me, given the vast expanse of the universe, and completely neglects the issue of eternal space and time which may underly existence itself. In other words, it's small thinking and is not at all the likeliest scenario, all things considered. The existence of other intelligent life in the universe, even given all the necessary contingencies, is still, in my opinion, much likelier than the converse. I'm sorry, but I can't see how or why that is even controversial.

As to the rest, surely you know of the problems with dualism -- the interaction issues? When we speak of interactions between things we speak of material interaction (worked out now at a quantum level). The very idea of a mechanism through which interaction can occur is a material idea -- think about it. Where did I get this from? The history of philosophy. Particularly the fallout after Descartes, who could not solve the interaction problem. Specifically, Spinoza; but many others since. Some tried to solve the issue with epiphenomenalism, but that is evn more inelegant. Some rejected the entire idea of a material world at all and retreated into idealism with all its attendant problems.

Dualism poses serious problems that cannot be wished away. Common sense does not supply a solution to the interaction problem; it simply creates the problem in the first place because we seem to live in a world where the mental drives the physical. Only magic -- the mysterious and unexplainable -- provides a solution, albeit a very intellectually unsatisfying one.

If you don't know this information, then I apologize because I assumed that you did.

 

[fls]

paleontologists: looking for something for which there is compelling evidence in order to provide evidence for or against falsifiable hypotheses that explain known observations.

Can you provide some examples for each of those bolded things?

For example, when paleontologists choose a site for a dig, what sort of compelling evidence is there that they will find something of interest? What is an example of a falsifiable hypothesis that they are testing? What observations does that hypothesis explain?

Linda

 

[Bri]

In saying that the sun will rise tomorrow, you're making an assumption that things which happened in the past will continue to happen in the future the same way.

I never said that the sun will rise tomorrow. I did say that there is evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. Do you disagree?

In saying that any of your data has to do with the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, you're making the same assumption.

I'm having trouble parsing the above sentence.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm having trouble parsing the above sentence.

-Bri

I think he's saying that the evidence that you use to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow is of the same general type as that used to predict that there is likely life elsewhere in the universe.

We know there is life here, so natural forces (presumably) can account for it; it is logical to assume that life could arise elsewhere. We know the sun rose yesterday, so it is likely that it will rise tomorrow.

The strength of evidence is not the same, but the type is.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Spot the fault in the design of this experiment.

The speech was probably from the time when the WTC towers still stood, but I should also point out that I didn't quote this bit from the transcript:

This one we can actually test. (Please don't tell the SPCA about this.) I don't really want to do the experiment, but let's walk through it as if I were doing it. It's a thought experiment.

For a thought experiment, it doesn't matter whether the towers still exist!

 

[Bri]

Can you provide some examples for each of those bolded things?

Sure.

Compelling evidence: there is plenty of compelling evidence that bones exist. Also, paleontologists tend to dig in areas where bones are more likely to be located as opposed to just digging randomly.

A hypothetical falsifiable hypothesis that bones might answer: a dinosaur for which we only have some bone fragments was an herbivore. Finding evidence (such as from teeth) that the dinosaur was a meat-eater would falsify the hypothesis.

Explaining known observations: we have observed the affects of dinosaurs on our planet, so discovering new evidence might further explain those observations.

-Bri