Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[articulett]

Intelligent aliens have a basis in reality... we define intelligence... we would know it if we saw it. Nobody can know an unknowable god. I'd say that skeptics don't believe that consciousness can exist absent a brain. We know consciousness can exist with a brain--we have no reason to even posit the notion of an invisible anything. Someone who talks to gods is as sane as someone who has experiences with demons or who believes in astrology. It doesn't mean their conclusions are evidence that they are experiencing what they are inferring.

My definition of skepticism excludes all magic-- including any form of invisible non corporeal consciousness. It defies everything we are learning about our world and isn't based on any tangible measurable evidence whatsoever and is a known way that people are fooled. We call it superstition. You may stretch the definition to include magic as possible or god as a real explanation for something--but that makes you a woo in my book-- not any different than those who believe they've had a psychic experience or been probed by aliens from another planet. Those beliefs are equally unlikely to most skeptics. Gods are as improbable as real psychics and ghosts and the power of tea leaf reading.

 

[articulett]

I'm sorry, but that is not what I'm suggesting at all. There is little if any evidence that any god exists (that I know of). Some might claim to have evidence (I even conversed with one person on this forum who claimed that God spoke to him and seemed sane in every other way) but that evidence is easily dismissed by those who haven't had the experience first-hand.

THAT is not evidence of god. Of course we can't experience it first hand-- you have to believe to experience it. We can't experience alien probing or schizophrenic delusions first hand either. We can't experience demon possession or "bad vibes" or any kind of "inner knowingness" that another person has. We can just evaluate whether their conclusions about their experiences have a bases in reality or if there is a better explanation then their own conclusion. And all woo beliefs have a better explanation in the non-woo skeptical scientific world. Believing that god is filling you with a magical feeling is not the same thing as there really being a god and really filling you with a magical feeling, you know.

We can dismiss that god experience just like we can all anecdote--because it's unreliable evidence for the existence of a magic man telepathically communicating his existence to those who are indoctrinated to believe in him and "feel" his presence. Unless of course, you just want to apply your skepticism selectively to believe what you want to believe and find out the truth in areas where you don't want to be mislead. Most skeptics are as skeptical of gods as they are of astrology--and for the SAME reasons. Are you skeptical of astrology, bri--and all claims positing a connection between planetary alignment and life on earth? Or do you treat it agnostically like god?

 

[articulett]

And boy are you obtuse regarding Moby's definition. You're the one who would say that p and ~p are equal if they both have evidence or they both have no evidence. And you count someone believing they've had experience of god as evidence of GOD--not evidence of experience or interpretation of experience. When there is evidence for both and only one can be true-- we learn to test and find the evidence that is true as well as why the other evidence seemed true but was misleading.

When someone swears they talked to god and the choice is
1. they've misinterpreted a subjective experience OR
2. they really had a communal meeting with a being they've been indoctrinated to believe in that has no detectable qualities but is consciousness without a body--

--then, the skeptic says the first explanation is much more likely than the second and so they aim to understand the situation from that vantage point. The other cannot bring understanding of anything--it can only lead one to make the same false conclusion the other person made.

 

[articulett]

Claus... do you agree with Bri-- are you guys on the same page? Or are all the self appointed experts speaking on different wavelengths yet again. At least I understand the people that I admire... so I don't think the miscommunication or lack of logic is coming from me.

I want to know what others think of Les's summary.

Bri, I know you don't like reading much (except yourself)--but do try to address stuff directed at you before ranting about how people aren't explaining things. Maybe you're the one who is has the communication problem--the one overestimating your own expertise on the subject.

 

[articulett]

Occam's razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.g., by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power. When giving explanatory reasons for something, don't posit more than is necessary. Von Däniken could be right: maybe extraterrestrials did teach ancient people art and engineering, but we don't need to posit alien visitations in order to explain the feats of ancient people. Why posit pluralities unnecessarily? Or, as most would put it today, don't make any more assumptions than you have to. We can posit the ether to explain action at a distance, but we don't need ether to explain it, so why assume an ethereal ether?

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

When choosing between god and "no god", you don't posit more than is necessary like consciousness without a brain and magic and mysticism and telepathic communication and entities that don't want anyone to know about them, etc. etc. etc. "No god" always wins. Unless or until there is measurable evidence that at least some sort of consciousness can exist outside of a corporeal body with a living functioning brain.

Things that exist are measurable via some means... they are detectable. Until proven otherwise, all other things are imaginary--including gods. We can explain belief in gods without assuming actual gods exist in the same way we can explain belief in demons without assuming actual demons exist.

 

[Mobyseven]

Well, more likely our knowledge of the subject is incomplete. But unfortunately, that's often the way things are. There are often competing theories, both with valid (though obviously not conclusive) evidence behind them.

An example off the top of my head (though not a perfect one) is quantum theory. There is a lot of evidence for quantum theory, but many scientists believe that there are "hidden variables" and that determinism is correct after all. Both can't possibly be true, but there are compelling reasons to believe either one and there is plenty of evidence for both.

If there is valid evidence both for and against a particular proposition P (i.e. both P and ~P are supported by evidence) it seems that both P and ~P would be skeptical according to your definition (even though one of them is wrong).

I agree entirely - often our knowledge of the subject is incomplete. In such a case there is scope for genuine scientific and skeptical debate, such as the evolutionary debate of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium. In such cases, however, it is not that there is separate evidence for p and ~p - it is that the evidence we have can be accounted for by both hypotheses. Both hypotheses are also unable to explain certain bodies of evidence that seem to support the alternate hypothesis.

The thing is, however, that in that situation we are discussing the properties of a known process - we know that evolution occurs, we're just figuring out exactly how.

When we are discussing whether an object or phenomenon exists in the first place, we run into an evidentiary issue that is not apparent when we are discussing the properties of an object - when discussing properties, we at least know that there is an object or phenomenon that the properties belong to, and there may be a number of viable hypotheses that explain the properties of the object. Think of a set of scales, upon which the evidence for each of the hypotheses is placed and balanced out against eachother - the most reasonable hypothesis is the one with the most evidence, but that doesn't mean a case can't be made for the other hypotheses as well.

When discussing the existence of an object, we don't have the pleasure of there being multiple hypotheses. We are given only two choices - either the object exists, or it doesn't.

This causes an evidentiary crisis, because while evidence can be provided for the existence of an object, you cannot provide any evidence for the non-existence of an object. This means that the only type of evidence that is possibly available is positive evidence - evidence for the existence of the object.

So we are faced with a problem - given most situations we would be able to weigh up the evidence for and against a given proposition and come to a conclusion, but in situations where the existence of an object is questioned we either have evidence for, or no evidence at all. Think of the analogy of the scales - we have a balanced set, but one side is electrified and you can never place any evidence on to that side.

How then to make a decision? For a skeptic, parsimony should be the key. Allowing oneself believe in one object or phenomenon for which there is no evidence (say, Bigfoot) is no different from believing in another object or phenomenon for which there is no evidence (say, reincarnation) from an epistemological point of view, as both are unjustified and are unknown to be true. And if one is to believe in one such object, what is to stop one from believing in them all? More than that, in the case of objects whose existence is mutually exclusive, how does one decide which object to believe in if there is no evidence to weigh on either side?

As such, the skeptical approach is to not believe in the existence of an object or phenomenon unless positive evidence is provided. Lack of negative evidence is no reason to 'keep an open mind' - indeed, the whole concept of providing evidence for the non-existence of an object is nonsense, much as asking someone to provide evidence that the colour blue is intelligent is nonsense. The whole issue is a red herring that leads many people down the paths of alernative medicine, psychic phenomena, and last but most certainly not least, god.

To argue that the god hypothesis is for some reason exempt from the same skeptical approach as every other hypothesis is to engage in special pleading, and is by definition a logical fallacy.

 

[-Fran-]

I agree entirely - often our knowledge of the subject is incomplete. In such a case there is scope for genuine scientific and skeptical debate, such as the evolutionary debate of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium. In such cases, however, it is not that there is separate evidence for p and ~p - it is that the evidence we have can be accounted for by both hypotheses. Both hypotheses are also unable to explain certain bodies of evidence that seem to support the alternate hypothesis.

[snip... a lot of good stuff. See above]

To argue that the god hypothesis is for some reason exempt from the same skeptical approach as every other hypothesis is to engage in special pleading, and is by definition a logical fallacy.

Great post! I can't see how it can get any clearer than this.

 

[CFLarsen]

The most succinct summary yet of the opposing views apparent in this thread. If I may, I will try to summarise myself;

We seem to agree that;

1. Some people hold a belief in a type of untestable god for which they make no overt claims, and do so purely for their own comfort. This god is quite different to that traditionally posited.

Agree.

2. Disbelief in god, due to lack of evidence is a sceptical PoV, providing as with all conceivable notions, the mind is kept open to the possibility of evidence emerging.

Don't agree. If skeptics disbelieve (actively), it is because they have examined the evidence pro et con of an evidential god. There is no evidence of an evidential god, on the contrary we can say that the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. But we can't say anything about a non-evidential god.

3. Belief in god is not sceptical per se. Bear with me here, because although I think we've reached this same conclusion, there's more to it and this next is where we diverge.

a) One side in this argument thinks that belief is god is not only not sceptical, but outright unsceptical, because it makes assumptions absent any evidence.

That's where this argument breaks down: We can't force a claim of evidence on someone who doesn't claim evidence.

b) The other side insists that though it may not be actively sceptical, it is not unsceptical either, because no overt claims made means that scepticism does not apply.

Absolutely. Without evidence - and especially if no evidence is claimed - there's nothing we can do.

And the root of this disagreement comes down to what constitutes a "claim". Many of us are of the opinion that stated belief in any god (under any meaningful definition, including deism), automatically assumes the existence of that god, regardless of how well hidden from scientific scrutiny it might be. We therefore emphasise the sceptical default position of disbelief. I know some people disagree with this, and insist that "to believe in" something does not mean to believe that it exists. Therefore they are not likely to accept the argument, and indeed the dictionary definition that this is exactly what it means. In my own turn, this is also a major stumbling block, and one that I see as purely semantic. In other words, the argument is going nowhere, because there is no longer anything to argue about beyond the definitions of words like "god" and "claim".

What you - and others - are doing, is forcing your own demands of evidence on others. You want those who claim a non-evidential god to claim an evidential god, because you can't imagine that they can believe in something non-evidential. Ergo, they must be claiming something evidential, so ergo, they are clearly wrong.

It is quite common among American children to have an imaginary friend. Is that imaginary friend evidential?

No, i implied it would be a mistake to do so, and once again you fail to see the
point.

You said:

A skeptic would require evidence which would amount to a solid conclusion before claiming 100% certainty. This level of certainty could never be reached for something that does not have any evidence. (whether or not evidence is claimed is irrelevant, because the fact remains there is none)

You said it would be a mistake to do so, if there wasn't any evidence.

What about when there was? Do you think that evolution is a 100% certainty?

This is where you are completely wrong. The claiming of evidence or not is irrelevant.

It is pivotal.

CFLarsen, you had a past life in which you were a serial killer, and your name was Mildred Koksmoker. This is untestable, and i do not claim to have evidence. According to you it is entirely reasonable for me as a skeptic to believe this without evidence.

But you just did claim evidence: We can check to see if there were such a serial killer with that name.

Actually CFLarsen, it appears it is you who needs to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

You persist with the notion that a skeptic does not require evidence. This is clearly wrong. You continuously fail to see that the claiming of evidence or not, is completely irrelevant.

Ehh...no. Talk about the need for brushing up on your reading skills.

I do not persist with the notion that a skeptic does not require evidence. A skeptic does require evidence - but if no evidence is claimed, a skeptic can't force the claimant to say the claimant has evidence.

That would be equivalent to Randi insisting that applicants are really using X, even though they may say they are using Y.

Everyone here understands you simplistic points:

You cannot test something which is not testable, therefore a skeptical scientific standpoint cannot not be applied to a belief which has no evidence and no way to be tested.
However, how can you claim to be skeptical, if skepticism was not applied?

How can you apply skepticism if no evidence was claimed? Be careful not to think that your own perception of reason is the same as scientific skepticism.

I don't even know what that means. I believe that there is one reality and everything that exists in that reality is measurable on some level. I don not believe there is any evidence in support of any gods, souls, magic, psychics, diviners, demons, homeopathy, chupacabra, etc. I think all of these things and all things with similar type "evidence" are woo-- they are illusions, delusions, misperceptions and false conclusions. But your question is so weird that, as usual, I don't understand it or even if I answered it.

Do you believe in something that you don't have any evidence of - and don't claim evidence of? Ever had an imaginary friend? Ever know someone who did?

I'm not saying that you aren't skeptical of demon possession.

Yes you did:

My students are possessed by demons. The evidence is the way they act. I'm not making any claims about the evidence--you guys aren't around to see the way they act anyhow-- I'm just using my own skeptical analysis to conclude the obvious.

Claus has no reason to be skeptical of it, that's for sure.

If you want to go back on that, fine.

I'm saying that you believe that belief in demon possession is outside the judgment of skepticism so long as no claims are made, right? Just like beliefs in god are outside the judgment or scrutiny of skepticism per your argument.

Everyone else seems to disagree. The logical position is to assume that all such beliefs are based on illogic-- none are based on any evidence involving real gods or supernatural entities. We don't need to hear what someone's evidence is to come to the conclusion that their belief isn't logical or based on truth.

You are mixing your own preconceived notions of what logic and reason is - if it isn't logical or reasonable to you, it must be illogical and unreasonable to all - with an open-minded skepticism: Ancora Imparo, if you like.

You didn't.

Then don't claim that I did. Don't lie about your opponent's stance.

You just don't think it's incompatible with logic. I think it is. I presupposed the existence of something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. We have no model for consciousness outside of a brain-- just lots and lots of stories, eons of assorted beliefs, and most of them proven mistaken--none of them proven valid.

Yes, we do have models for consciousness outside of a brain. The models are not supported with evidence, and they are most likely not true. But they are models, whether you like it or not.

I'm not even sure what that means. I reject logic based on philosophical naturalism... Daniel Dennett's philosophy. I accept logic based on EVIDENCE. I reject the supernatural as an explanation for anything. I do not have any supernatural beliefs. It's all woo until or unless evidence shows otherwise. When skeptics and scientists increasingly agree--you can bet you've got an increasingly accurate understanding of the world-- and our world shows no evidence of any gods, demons, or magic.

You do understand what it means, then. OK, you reject logic based on philosophical naturalism - Dennett's philosophy.

Why? Does he not, at some point, claim evidence? He never points to the real world?

To me, it always sounds like you are arguing and telling people they are wrong--but they aren't saying what you think they are and you seem to agree for the most part. I think the only disagreement we have (other than your tone) is that you think that a belief is not subject to scrutiny if no evidence is claimed, and the rest of us disagree.

Look back at the many personal snipes you have made at me, and other posters.

Do you think Hal's belief in a god is evidence at all for an actual god? Do you think there is any valid reason to suppose that consciousness can exist absent matter? Any evidence? Do you think a belief in god is like a preference for vanilla ice cream-- that is, it's not a belief about reality or truth?-- more on par with a "feeling"?

You have paid absolutely no attention to what I have said, if you can ask those questions. Go back and read what I have posted.

Really.

My definition of skepticism involves never positing the supernatural as an explanation. You think the supernatural could be true. And yet, despite eons of belief there's no measurable evidence for any such things--no measurable evidence for psychic powers, gods, demons, past lives, or souls. I think it they were real--science would discover them like they discovered germs. By the way--germs are material things... we understand them. And not by gurus either--they attributed sickness to curses, demon possession, and angry gods.

That's why your definition of skepticism is wrong. You are not open to the possibility that the supernatural could be true. Your mind is closed, and nothing will change it. It isn't skepticism, but cynicism.

According to Claus' skeptic manifesto they are.

It's not my skeptic manifesto. I linked to Shermer because it sums up scientific skepticism very well.

Claus... do you agree with Bri-- are you guys on the same page? Or are all the self appointed experts speaking on different wavelengths yet again. At least I understand the people that I admire... so I don't think the miscommunication or lack of logic is coming from me.

Why should I even entertain such a snooty question? You shoot me down with a personal attack, by calling me a "self appointed expert", while you constantly refer to your own definition of skepticism. And then you have the gall to criticize me for my "tone".

You know perfectly well that I don't agree with Bri - if you had read what I had posted.

 

[Belz...]

Personally, I disagree -- I think it is perfectly compatible with skepticism to have opinions on nearly any subject for which there is no conclusive evidence.

Hey, man. Whatever you need to sleep at night.

Close enough. But that has nothing to do with argument from ignorance.

Of course it does, because I can smell the rest of the argument.

Thank you for retracting it.

I haven't done it yet.

 

[NeilC]

Claus... do you agree with Bri-- are you guys on the same page? Or are all the self appointed experts speaking on different wavelengths yet again. At least I understand the people that I admire... so I don't think the miscommunication or lack of logic is coming from me.

I want to know what others think of Les's summary.

Bri, I know you don't like reading much (except yourself)--but do try to address stuff directed at you before ranting about how people aren't explaining things. Maybe you're the one who is has the communication problem--the one overestimating your own expertise on the subject.

Is there any chance you can just stick to the subject and not snipe at the people? It makes rational discussion difficult.

 

[Bri]

I agree entirely - often our knowledge of the subject is incomplete. In such a case there is scope for genuine scientific and skeptical debate, such as the evolutionary debate of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium. In such cases, however, it is not that there is separate evidence for p and ~p - it is that the evidence we have can be accounted for by both hypotheses. Both hypotheses are also unable to explain certain bodies of evidence that seem to support the alternate hypothesis.

...

I appreciate your post, and I understand where you're coming from and agree with most of what you said. However, I'm not sure you answered my question.

As an example, let P be "determinism is true."

Is it skeptical to believe either P or ~P? If it is skeptical to believe only one of them, which one? Or must one withhold all opinion on the matter in order to be skeptical?

-Bri

 

[articulett]

I think Mobyseven was absolutely on target. I just think it's amusing that those telling me to stick to the subject and not snipe are the ones that derailed the thread and started the sniping. They have no awareness of how their nastiness provoked the responses it got...just like my sig indicates! I feel like I'm in an endless "pugilistic discussion syndrome" with those who are playing some game in their head when it comes to Claus, Bri, and NeilC. They don't understand each other, and I don't understand any of them. I think I'll stick to discussing topics with people I do understand-- and those who understand what I'm saying. It's much more pleasant that way.

I mean I understand that some people think that positing a god is as logical as assuming no god, but I find their argument specious, fallacious. and all over the place. I think the skeptical position is to treat all god belief as demon belief or past life belief or belief in psychics or astrology or the notion that we are living in a matrix or part of some other being's delusion. For the same reasons. It's all woo until proven otherwise.

 

[NeilC]

I think Mobyseven was absolutely on target. I just think it's amusing that those telling me to stick to the subject and not snipe are the ones that derailed the thread and started the sniping. They have no awareness of how their nastiness provoked the responses it got...just like my sig indicates! I feel like I'm in an endless "pugilistic discussion syndrome" with those who are playing some game in their head when it comes to Claus, Bri, and NeilC. They don't understand each other, and I don't understand any of them. I think I'll stick to discussing topics with people I do understand-- and those who understand what I'm saying. It's much more pleasant that way.

I mean I understand that some people think that positing a god is as logical as assuming no god, but I find their argument specious, fallacious. and all over the place. I think the skeptical position is to treat all god belief as demon belief or past life belief or belief in psychics or astrology or the notion that we are living in a matrix or part of some other being's delusion. For the same reasons. It's all woo until proven otherwise.

If you can find the post where I was rude I will gladly apologise. I have to say reading back, your posts seem quite aggresive but whatever.

I assure you understand what Bri and Claus are saying, although I've not followed Claus's arguments as closely. I'm certainly not playing a game here, in my head or anywhere else.

I'm actually trying to work my way though this to work out what the truth of the matter is. You make lots of good arguments why not to believe in a god. But then I don't believe in a god anyway. Furthermore I believe there are no gods, not now or ever, of any kind. However the logical argument still stands that a belief there are no gods cannot have any evidence. I'm trying to work out whether I can just dismiss this as just "playing with words", or whether it's an uncomfortable fact that might cause me to have to adjust the way I approach other areas of belief/disbelief.

 

[Big Les]

CFL, could you clarify your imaginary friend comment (is an imaginary friend evidential?) for me? I don't want to misunderstand your underlying point.

I was just reminded of an H.L. Mencken quote that Dawkins uses; “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” In other words, we need not necessarily respect it at all, and certainly shouldn't set any store by it, because it is only in his own head.

But this is still not an ideal analogy, because the things in question are real, tangible people, whose objective beauty and intelligence can be measured and quantified. The man's perceptions/delusions about his family have a basis and inspiration in the real world - a reason for being held, no matter how objectively wrong they might be. He believes this for comfort, but also because it binds him to his family and helps perpetuate his interests (e.g. the propagation of his genes). The Deist god on the other hand, has no reason to be conceived of in the first place - no evidence to suggest that it ever existed. It's a god of the gaps just as much as Jehovah or Allah; it can just hide more easily in those gaps because it's claimed at the most to have created the universe. As Skeptigirl has repeatedly said, the only impetus for belief in the Deist god is the raft of religious claims that came before its conception. You have to start with a god for which claims are made, to be able to water the concept down until it is nothing more than an idea of some apathetic and/or impotent creator deity. The Deist god is inoffensive and, to quote Douglas Adams, "Mostly Harmless", but also wholly unnecessary. Dawkins sees it as atheism in all but name, and as a result seems to think that time to attacking its proponents is time wasted and is counterproductive - akin to infighting. I agree on both counts, but still feel that the elephant in the living room should be addressed, particularly by "theist sceptics" (who we seem to have narrowed down to just Deist sceptics") who would otherwise dismiss such a notion until and unless some evidence emerged.

I still don't understand the semantic differentiation between saying "I believe in god" and "I believe that god exists". They are one and the same. And if you believe god exists, you are claiming that it exists, without evidence. Meanwhile, all the evidence we do have suggests that all god beliefs have grown up based upon nothing more than a fundamental misunderstanding of the natural world. Deists want to throw out all the superstition, but retain the comforting idea that all of this has some higher purpose. Well, sorry, but all available evidence points towards life being essentially meaningless. We're here by accident, let's make the most of it. If you want to imagine some crutch to get you through, that's fine. But it's inconsistent with the sort of rational and sceptical outlook that strives to get as close to understanding of the world as possible, abandoning baseless beliefs wherever they are recognised. Is this outlook, which many of us here seem to share, and is characterised by both active scepticism and atheism, really something more or other than just plain "scepticism" as Claus says? If so, what do we call it?

Another question for me is; "are there any sceptics who are actually theists?". I still think that any belief in god is the same thing as saying that there is one, and that on that basis, even a Deist is making an implicit claim and is failing to apply scepticism or rational thought to one specific area of their lives. I know Claus disagrees. But what of true theist sceptics, if they exist?

 

[Bri]

I've understood everything that NeilC has said, and I'm in agreement. I disagree with some of what Beth has said and agree with some, but I've understood what she's saying. I haven't been reading Claus' posts very carefully so I can't really comment although from what I've read on other threads, he seems to know what he's talking about.

However, my opinion is that there is room for debate among skeptics on many subjects, and in that light I'm not at all surprised if there are disagreements.

I don't see the discussion as "our camp" vs. "your camp." I'm just interested in knowing if those who claim that there is some definition of "skepticism" that can objectively determine which of a set of beliefs (P and ~P) is skeptical can provide such a definition, especially in cases where there is a lack of objective or conclusive evidence. At this point, I'm skeptical that such a definition exists, although it remains to be seen if Mobyseven's definition fits the bill.

-Bri

 

[Mobyseven]

I appreciate your post, and I understand where you're coming from and agree with most of what you said. However, I'm not sure you answered my question.

As an example, let P be "determinism is true."

Is it skeptical to believe either P or ~P? If it is skeptical to believe only one of them, which one? Or must one withhold all opinion on the matter in order to be skeptical?

-Bri

I have already answered this question above. If you're going to ask me about every claim that can be signified by P, we're going to be here a while.

What, if anything, did you disagree with in my previous post? Asking me about a specific case when I have addressed the general is not very constructive.

 

[CFLarsen]

CFL, could you clarify your imaginary friend comment (is an imaginary friend evidential?) for me? I don't want to misunderstand your underlying point.

It's very simple: Does someone claiming an imaginary friend claim that the friend exists?

 

[Bri]

I have already answered this question above. If you're going to ask me about every claim that can be signified by P, we're going to be here a while.

Specifically, I didn't see a "yes" or a "no" so I wanted to make sure that I understood your position as to whether in this case both P and ~P are skeptical opinions according to your definition. Other valid responses would have been "it would only be skeptical not to have an opinion" or "P is the skeptical opinion because..." or "~P is the skeptical opinion because..."

Although you seemed to imply that yes, P and ~P are both skeptical opinions, you continued with some additional comments, so I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't misunderstanding.

ETA: The other reason for my post was to offer a specific example because it seemed that you might have misunderstood and thought that I was suggesting that P and ~P were two different theories that fit the known evidence. I wasn't. In this case P would refer to the proposition that a particular theory is true (and ~P would refer to the proposition that the theory is not true).

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

Claus - Since when do people claim things that they think don't exist ?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus - Since when do people claim things that they think don't exist ?

When they claim imaginary friends.