Israel/Gaza (Round 3)

[Chiki]

Yes but I've already stated repeatedly that when we're categorising something like that the degree becomes irrelevant. (In fact didn't I raise that originally?) That doesn't show that a degree of belief is not an existant thing, merely that it is not relevant to some discussions.

Yes it does.

Also, I'd argue one can't actually say they believe the proposition that it is 100% likely that John is dead if they are not absoloute in that belief

Why not? I mean, I'm not absolute in my belief in the nonexistence of God, but I can sure as hell say I believe that God doesn't exist.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Chiki

[Irysa]

Yes it does.

You can't just say "yes it does" if you want this debate to continue. You have to demonstrate how. I've given a reasonable example that is relatable to occurances in real life; That it is possible to have an uncertain position of belief. If I'm uncertain that god exists, then I'm categorically an agnostic. If I develop the statement and say that I'm 50/50 on believing in god's existance/not believing in god's existance then I'm still agnostic, and in in effect this is the same as saying I'm 50% sure (in my belief) that god exists or that I'm 50% sure (in my belief) that god does not exist. This particular uncertanity can be disregarded if we seek to exclusively categorise people into camps of whether they believe or whether they do not believe, but it does not mean it doesn't exist.

Why not? I mean, I'm not absolute in my belief in the nonexistence of God, but I can sure as hell say I believe that God doesn't exist.

Of course, because as I pointed out in my previous post, a statement such as "I believe x is true" doesn't assume an absoloute belief. The expanded statement "I believe that it is 100% likely that x is true" does assume an absoloute belief. You can't actually have a variable degree of belief in the latter statement because it denies any possibility of x not being true, so to actually believe it, you have to be absoloute, wheras the former statement does not do this.

[feplus]

In an effort to condense this post, I'll be responding to choice points made by various posters.

@Chiki

1. I did not confuse god and numbers. I offered up mathematical platonism as a complementary example of nonempirical, yet real, beings.

2. I did not say god was causally inert.

3. There are indeed philosophers who argue god can break the laws of logic, the most famous of which is probably William of Ockham.

4. The term "metaphysical" is indeed used by philosophers as a stand-alone term, typically to contrast the metaphysical with the empirical.

5. As I explained previously, we must distinguish between god and god's effects on the world. The latter is empirical and the former is not.

6. If my wording was unclear, mathematical platonism is the most popular position held by anglosphere philosophers on that particular topic. As the PhilPapers numbers demonstrate, that claim is true.

@Rapier

In addition to Chiki's comments, a philosopher can demonstrate some metaphysical argument is bunk by showing how it is unsound or invalid.

@Irysa

You are correct. Claiming X does not mean claiming X with absolute certainty; many philosophers, notably argued by Peirce, think absolute certainty is an impossible standard to satisfy anyway.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feplus

[Chiki]

I did not confuse god and numbers. I offered up mathematical platonism as a complementary example of nonempirical, yet real, beings.

2. I did not say god was causally inert.

It's a completely irrelevant example. God is not an abstract object. Numbers are. It's a very rudimentary mistake to make.

Anyway, the question of God's existence is empirical in that God's existence makes certain claims about the nature of reality because God has causal interactions with the external world. If one can explain and scientifically prove the existence of the universe without God, then that is certainly empirical reason to believe that God doesn't exist.

On the other hand, the existence of numbers cannot ever ever ever be a matter of scientific investigation since they are causally inert.

3. There are indeed philosophers who argue god can break the laws of logic, the most famous of which is probably William of Ockham.

Modern philosophers please.

4. The term "metaphysical" is indeed used by philosophers as a stand-alone term, typically to contrast the metaphysical with the empirical.

Not in modern literature.

5. As I explained previously, we must distinguish between god and god's effects on the world. The latter is empirical and the former is not.

Uh.. if something has empirical effects on the world, then it must itself be something worthy of scientific investigation.

6. If my wording was unclear, mathematical platonism is the most popular position held by anglosphere philosophers on that particular topic. As the PhilPapers numbers demonstrate, that claim is true.

Keep in mind that you used the word "prevalent":

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prevalent

the prevalent position among professional philosophers when it comes to the nature of numbers, is a good example.

It's not widespread or generally accepted.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

I did not say god was an abstract object. I said god, like numbers in a mathematical platonist framework, is a non-empirical thing. You are reading an error into a statement without error.

There are three issues with your second paragraph:

1. As mentioned twice previous, god's impact on the world and god himself are distinct. A burning bush can be empirically investigated; god cannot be empirically investigated. Or consider the case of Cartesian rationalism: the world is comprised of two fundamental substances in matter and mind, and mind has causal power over matter. Your claim would collapse this dualism into a monism.

2. A sufficient empirical account of the universe cannot in principle be given.

3. Sufficient explanations are not necessarily true explanations. If I can't find my car keys, assuming I misplaced them somewhere is a sufficient explanation for their absence, but not necessarily true; they could have been taken by a friend accidentally. Analogously, a sufficient non-theistic explanation of the universe does not necessarily mean theism is false.

To my knowledge, absolute omnipotence has been abandoned by contemporary philosophers of religion. (Though some other significant historical figures, including Descartes, buy into an absolutely omnipotent god.)

And yes, it appears I was unclear in my wording. By "prevalent" I meant that a plurality of philosophers buy into the idea. I said this to reinforce how the idea is taken seriously by experts. Hopefully you find that a more precise phrasing.

EDIT: Let me add that while god, as a non-empirical thing, cannot be empirically investigated, other religious claims can be empirically investigated. A literalist Christian argues the universe was created in seven days; though this claim comes from a religious text, it is an empirical claim, and science can weigh in on its truth.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feplus

[Moishe Oofnik]

Just making sure I read this right because there's no punctuation.

- You're before army and even if you're working, my guess is that you're not paying taxes like arnona or bituach leumi

- Leiberman was crap

- Lapid should be either Foreign or Education Minister

- You're not a fan of Bibi

- You want Moshe Kahlon to be PM Economics Minister

Pretty much in line with my own thinking however I'm still going to vote for Lapid. Simply because Lapid needs enough seats to be able to argue for the job of Foreign or Education Minister. My hope is that he's Foreign Minister. As for Moshe Kahlon, I really don't know enough about him to support him or be against him. But as long as Bennett isn't PM, I'm happy.

By the way, speak English on the forums. I might understand you but everyone else won't.

[Chiki]

1. As mentioned twice previous, god's impact on the world and god himself are distinct. A burning bush can be empirically investigated; god cannot be empirically investigated. Or consider the case of Cartesian rationalism: the world is comprised of two fundamental substances in matter and mind, and mind has causal power over matter. Your claim would collapse this dualism into a monism.

You're not understanding the basic point. If God has had any effects on the world, then that makes him a target of scientific investigation, and therefore something that ought to be empirically studied. And his existence can then be empirically ruled out by Occam's razor if he is deemed unnecessary for the existence of the external world.

Wtf? You're acting like that's a bad thing. That's a wonderful thing! It's like you're taking Cartesian dualism for granted and acting like it's a bad thing to reject it. Ridiculous.

A sufficient empirical account of the universe cannot in principle be given.

Says who? =_= Prove it.

And yes, it appears I was unclear in my wording. By "prevalent" I meant that a plurality of philosophers buy into the idea. I said this to reinforce how the idea is taken seriously by experts. Hopefully you find that a more precise phrasing.

And nominalism is taken just as seriously. The comparison was just asinine. God and numbers are in no way alike.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

I understand you fine. You're arguing that if a non-empirical thing has causal power over empirical things, it is itself an object of empirical investigation. This is a category mistake. It would, as I say, be the equivalent of arguing Cartesian mind is empirically observable.

Occam's razor cannot prove something true or false.

A sufficient scientific account of the universe cannot in principle be given because scientific inquiry depends upon the existence of empirical objects to function. A method cannot prove what it assumes; this would involve circular reasoning.

As I have explained to you many, many times now, God and numbers are alike in a very significant sense: they are non-empirical objects.

[Chiki]

This is a category mistake. It would, as I say, be the equivalent of arguing Cartesian mind is empirically observable.

Uh..... that's a good thing. I want to do that. That's exactly why Cartesian dualism is such a suspicious view. See epiphenomenalism.

Occam's razor cannot prove something true or false.

No, neither can science (due to the problem of induction). Science can't conclusively prove anything. That's fine though. We do science anyway.

A sufficient scientific account of the universe cannot in principle be given because scientific inquiry depends upon the existence of empirical objects to function. A method cannot prove what it assumes; this would involve circular reasoning.

That's fine.. we do this in other areas too, like in ethics and math.. see here. No one takes seriously the kind of skeptical arguments you're giving me. Omg how do I know whether I really exist? Come on, we're way past that.

Seriously, have you ever done any kind of philosophy?

Edited February 28, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

You don't have to like Cartesian dualism, but you cannot claim the substance of mind is empirical because it has causal power over the empirical. This is, to repeat myself, a category mistake. Epiphenomenalism has nothing to do with anything we've talked about.

I did not say science requires certainly. I said Occam's razor cannot prove a claim false.

An axiom is an assumption, not a sufficient explanation.

Seriously, have you ever done any kind of philosophy?

As mentioned previously, I have a bachelor's.

Nothing tickles my fancy more than forum dwellers suffering from a hearty dose of Dunning-Kruger. So rather than make a snide comment, as I normally do, I will instead edit this post with all of the philosophy and reading comprehension errors you have made during our brief exchange. Better to teach than to mock, right?

EDIT: Okay. Because this is the serious discussion subreddit and calls for arguing in good faith, I am going to spend an extra five-to-ten minutes detailing the errors present in our exchange. I am happy to continue talking; I am not happy to repeat myself, I am not happy to explain basic philosophic concepts, I am not happy to be insulted.

Let's begin with the philosophic and reading comprehension errors on your side:

1. You claimed I said god was an abstract object. Nowhere did I say god was an abstract object.

2. You claimed numbers and god have nothing in common. Numbers and god are both non-empirical.

3. You claimed no one believes in absolute omnipotence. Many prominent thinkers do believe in absolute omnipotence.

4. You claimed "metaphysical" is not used as a stand-alone term. It is used as a stand-alone term.

5. You claimed that god having casual power over empirical objects means god is empirical. This is not the case. **

6. You claimed a sufficient empirical explanation of the universe could be given. It cannot in principle.

7. You mistakenly believe recognizing the explanatory limitations of science leads us towards needless skepticism.

8. You mistakenly believe recognizing the explanatory limitations of science is not something "taken seriously," despite it being the focal issue of philosophy of science.

**- As this point has proved challenging to convey, here is a very simple analogy. Imagine a pond; the fish in this pond can never escape the water. Imagine a man grabs a nearby twig and starts poking around the surface, which causes ripples. The fish notice and swim up to see why their pond is being disturbed. The pond is empirical reality; objects within the pond are empirical objects; the fish are human beings; the stick is god's interference with the world; the man is god. It would be fine to say that the twig is an empirical thing, as it is beneath the water. It would not be fine to say that god is an empirical thing, as he is beyond the water.

In fairness, I have made some mistakes too. In order:

1. My use of the term "prevalent" was imprecise.

2. I have been excessively generous with my time.

Now, if there are any points you disagree with or are confused about, please refer to one of the numbers in the above list. I am tired of parsing through long, textbox-heavy replies.

Edited February 28, 2015 by feplus

[Chiki]

As mentioned previously, I have a bachelor's.

Really? I can't tell from your posts. I got the impression that you were like Makaze.

You don't have to like Cartesian dualism, but you cannot claim the substance of mind is empirical because it has causal power over the empirical. This is, to repeat myself, a category mistake. Epiphenomenalism has nothing to do with anything we've talked about.

Yes you can. The bolded part is the reason why people are epiphenomenalists... so this has everything to do with your rookie claim.

I did not say science requires certainly. I said Occam's razor cannot prove a claim false.

Yep, and I was saying that's fine. There are no ultimate proofs in math or in science.

An axiom is an assumption, not a sufficient explanation.

Sigh. Yes, we don't have an ultimately sufficient explanation for anything. We don't have an ultimately sufficient explanation for anything in math or in ethics either. But this is just an elementary mistake that first year philosophy majors make: don't take seriously skeptical arguments like these. Taking axioms is good enough for math and for science.

1. You claimed I said god was an abstract object. Nowhere did I say god was an abstract object.

Where? Quote me where I outright said you think God is an abstract object. I merely said your comparison was asinine.

2. You claimed numbers and god have nothing in common. Numbers and god are both non-empirical.

3. You claimed no one believes in absolute omnipotence. Many prominent thinkers do believe in absolute omnipotence.

4. You claimed "metaphysical" is not used as a stand-alone term. It is used as a stand-alone term.

Now you're just repeating yourself with no arguments whatsoever. Come on philosophy major, give us some arguments!

6. You claimed a sufficient empirical explanation of the universe could be given. It cannot in principle.

A sufficient explanation of nothing can be ultimately given. No one cares. How many times do I have to repeat the point?

7. You mistakenly believe recognizing the explanatory limitations of science leads us towards needless skepticism.

8. You mistakenly believe recognizing the explanatory limitations of science is not something "taken seriously," despite it being the focal issue of philosophy of science.

In science, we take as an assumption the external world exists, as you pointed out. Questioning that is the most basic skeptical argument imaginable!

Plus, Mr. Philosophy Major, you owe us arguments. Don't just blurt out points with no reasoning whatsoever behind them. Isn't this the first thing that is taught in an intro class?

As this point has proved challenging to convey, here is a very simple analogy. Imagine a pond; the fish in this pond can never escape the water. Imagine a man grabs a nearby twig and starts poking around the surface, which causes ripples. The fish notice and swim up to see why their pond is being disturbed. The pond is empirical reality; objects within the pond are empirical objects; the fish are human beings; the stick is god's interference with the world; the man is god. It would be fine to say that the twig is an empirical thing, as it is beneath the water. It would not be fine to say that god is an empirical thing, as he is beyond the water.

I don't see why God isn't "beneath the water" too, lol. He must exist in the external world if he has causal interactions with us. That's a basic law of logic! So he is beneath the water. Okay?

[Phoenix Wright]

You're not understanding the basic point. If God has had any effects on the world, then that makes him a target of scientific investigation, and therefore something that ought to be empirically studied. And his existence can then be empirically ruled out by Occam's razor if he is deemed unnecessary for the existence of the external world.

this has nothing to do with anything really, but i'm curious: how is occam's razor inherently empirical? and let's go a little deeper--why would you ever consider occam's razor a useful tool in answering a scientific question?

Edited March 15, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

this has nothing to do with anything really, but i'm curious: how is occam's razor inherently empirical? and let's go a little deeper--why would you ever consider occam's razor a useful tool in answering a scientific question?

Suppose there's two theories of the world that both explain the existence of the world equally effectively, but one theory argues that pink invisible unicorns exist, and the other does not. The only way to rule out the former theory is with Occam's razor (which says that scientific theories should make as few assumptions as possible, and the existence of pink unicorns is completely superfluous), since both theories explain the existence of the world equally well.

Occam's razor would allow us to rule out the existence of God on empirical grounds for the same reason. Occam's razor is by no means conclusive, but it's still something we need for the aforementioned reason.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

Suppose there's two theories of the world that both explain the existence of the world equally effectively, but one theory argues that pink invisible unicorns exist, and the other does not. The only way to rule out the former theory is with Occam's razor (which says that scientific theories should make as few assumptions as possible, and the existence of pink unicorns is completely superfluous), since both theories explain the existence of the world equally well.

Occam's razor would allow us to rule out the existence of God on empirical grounds for the same reason. Occam's razor is by no means conclusive, but it's still something we need for the aforementioned reason.

but how is that empirical? empirical is defined as

em·pir·i·cal

əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: empirical

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

occam's razor doesn't seem concerned with observation or "experience," rather with the logic that it is more plausible that the initial theory doesn't rely on the existence of unicorns. science concerns itself with falsifiability; if occam's razor is the only possible conclusion to a hypothesis, chances are the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. if neither theory can be tested, it's not empirical!

Edited March 16, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

*yawn* invisible pink unicorns are unobservable, which makes it concerned with observation. Hence, we reject something because it is not empirical, meaning the fact that something is rejected on empirical grounds is itself empirical. That was a mouthful, but it's kinda obvious.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

ehhhhh i dunno 'bout that bruh bruh

Edited March 16, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

By definition, if something is concerned with observation, then it's empirical. Since the existence of invisible pink unicorns is unobservable, then it's concerned with science; hence, it can be rejected based on empirical grounds. (Because they're not observable.)

A lot of things aren't observable too though, like dinosaur poop 100 million years ago. Should we reject the existence of dinosaur poop based on that? No, we just have to improve our criteria a little bit.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

science does not and would not attempt to answer such a question. if something is truly unobservable, it cannot be concerned with observation. science has nothing to say about the existence of unobservable objects or beings. something that's concerned with how the universe works typically belongs under the "physics" umbrella: if you can find some published article that attempts to quantitatively assess the necessity for some unobservable thing, i think i might better understand the point your trying to make. as it stands now, it only appears clear to me that you don't quite understand the scientific method (you were very confused when we discussed string theory before), which is understandable. perhaps reading some of the scientific literature could aid in your understanding.

dinosaur poop can be demonstrated to have existed, as you've said. what is typically seen as supernatural cannot be determined to physically be one way or another, though.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

science does not and would not attempt to answer such a question. if something is truly unobservable, it cannot be concerned with observation. science has nothing to say about the existence of unobservable objects or beings.

That's why we reject it. =_= That's what I'm trying to tell you.

[Phoenix Wright]

there's a difference between rejection and ignoring dude. if we cannot know something we cannot necessarily reject explanations that describe that something. there is no empirical basis. that is, there is no quantifiable answer, theoretically or experimentally, that adequately explains one explanation over another.

if something is inherently supernatural, by definition it cannot be explained with contemporary methods, therefore we cannot give an answer one way or another for how that supernatural thing may behave. that's why science does not concern itself with the supernatural to begin with.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Yojinbo]

There's no such thing as supernatural.

[Phoenix Wright]

i'm not arguing that one way or another. my point is that scientifically, or empirically, one cannot determine that an unobservable behaves in some well-defined way. in this case i assert that occam's razor does not serve as an empirical basis by which we can reject the existence of an unobservable. that is absurd.

philosophically speaking, we can debate the existence of the supernatural all day. i'm not taking issue with the possible razor's conclusion in this form!

Edited March 17, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

there's a difference between rejection and ignoring dude. if we cannot know something we cannot necessarily reject explanations that describe that something. there is no empirical basis. that is, there is no quantifiable answer, theoretically or experimentally, that adequately explains one explanation over another.

if something is inherently supernatural, by definition it cannot be explained with contemporary methods, therefore we cannot give an answer one way or another for how that supernatural thing may behave. that's why science does not concern itself with the supernatural to begin with.

We can't reject the existence of invisible pink unicorns outright (for example, even Richard Dawkins says that the nonexistence of God is not certain). That would be dumb, and I'm not saying that. But something being unobservable surely is empirical reason to believe it doesn't exist. Ok? It's very simple.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

Invisible pink unicorns --> cannot be rejected --> unobservable --> rejected

there is no empiricism. it's a simple idea, but it's wrong. it's a wrong idea.

[Rapier]

But something being unobservable surely is empirical reason to believe it doesn't exist. Ok? It's very simple.

It isn't, and your argument does not lead to the conclusion that 'something being unobservable surely is empirical reason to believe it doesn't exist' in any way.

As a counterexample, it is possible for something to be unobservable (say, a comet in a very far galaxy) and still exist. The lack of observation is not an assertion that x [does not] exist. Besides, our observation is merely subjective and mind dependant, it has no bearing on the objective existance of said phenomenon.