All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[leibowde84]

On a personal level, we determine what is substantiated, or not. That really isn't a consistent thing.

That is true, but, in a debate, I feel that it is only respectful to provide verifiable evidence, as it is unreasonable to expect your opponent to take your word for anything.

 

[leibowde84]

In a murder trial X says he saw Y shoot Z. That is evidence, but no one can verify it. Evidence does not mean verifiable proof. In the same manner I base my beliefs on evidence knowing it is not proof.

A witness statement in court is not admissible as valid evidence unless verified in some way. They don't merely take the witnesses word for it.

 

[leibowde84]

If you let A be the proposition "God exists", then "God doesn't exist" would be ~A (although a more precise rendering would be "it is not the case that god exists", but because nobody talks like that we'd translate ~A as "god doesn't exist").

Does that make a difference in this context though?

 

[Ouroboros]

That is true, but, in a debate, I feel that it is only respectful to provide verifiable evidence, as it is unreasonable to expect your opponent to take your word for anything.

What about if it's simply a discussion or a dialogue, and not a formal debate?

 

[George-ananda]

A witness statement in court is not admissible as valid evidence unless verified in some way. They don't merely take the witnesses word for it.

Correct, it is admissible as evidence though!! People then debate the quality of the evidence in court. You are still confusing the word 'evidence' with 'verifiable fact'.

If George-ananda claims to sees the legendary White Lady ghost at the Brookside Mansion that is evidence arguing for the existence of the White Lady ghost. Now a skeptic can legitimately debate the quality of the evidence (optical illusion, George-ananda is a known loony bird, etc.) but evidence does not have to be verifiable to be considered evidence. So everyone who says 'there is no evidence for the paranormal' doesn't understand what they are saying.

 

[suncowiam]

No, I don't. I don't regard beliefs as either inherently good or bad; such a concept seems, itself, to be largely derived from Christian doctrine (heck, about 70% of the US's values are rooted specifically in puritan morality, which I've observed being a large behavioral influence even in staunch atheists; consider H.P. Lovecraft). Beliefs are what they are, but they can't be regarded as having inherent qualities of "good" or "bad", since they don't exist in a vacuum.

Kim Davis' belief is harmful because it exists within a context that both enables and encourages her to act that belief out in a way that's harmful to individuals and our cultures. The same, however, could easily be said of beliefs that our culture would regard as virtuous; consider the well-known declaration that "all men are created equal". When taken out of context, it enables the erasure of things like from-birth disabilities, inherent physical differences, etc., and by extension encourages this idea that "everyone has the capability to do everything, and thus anyone who asserts that they can't do a thing is just being lazy". In the context of the original document, this isn't the case; for one, "men" refers specifically to white males over 21 who owned property, and for another, the equality is only in reference to the idea that everyone that "men" encompasses has equal and inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." However, cherry-picking seems to be a valued tradition in the US, at this point, such that we now have the painfully inaccurate, and in many contexts quite harmful, notion that "America is a free country".

Or, closer to the topic, even the assertion that religious ideas are not to be regarded as sacrosanct and thus free to be mocked, could potentially enable cultural discrimination and segregation because many US cultures are so deeply religious. The assertion is something I fully believe, even as a religious person. But also as a religious person, I can't ignore its possible long-term negative implications or consequences.

Scientific experimentation is about reducing uncontrollable variables, such that the experiment is performed in a figurative (sometimes literal) vacuum. While certainly a great thing, I wonder if this has created a mindset in certain people within the scientific community, that things should only be looked at independent of everything around them, even outside the laboratory setting. That couldn't be a more inappropriate way of looking at the real world outside the lab; EVERYTHING exists within the context of everything else: the Butterfly Effect.

Yes, I have to agree with you. Having internal beliefs that have not resulted in action is not harmful to society. However, individuals that want to act on their beliefs should first validate their beliefs. Good or bad is within context of the individual, of the organization, of the culture, of the society...

Without a validation process which religion tends not to have outside of faith (which is not a process!), then I see no merit to accept religious doctrine. I'm not suggesting that every belief goes through the scientific method, but it has to go through some process. In Kim Davis's context, it did go through the US legal process, yet she still defies the judgement and declares her religious process as the final measure.

 

[leibowde84]

What about if it's simply a discussion or a dialogue, and not a formal debate?

If you are just expressing your beliefs, anything is fine. But, if you make a claim in opposition to another person's claim and are discussing the plausibility of both, then verifiable evidence is necessary for support, imho.

 

[leibowde84]

Correct, it is admissible as evidence though!! People then debate the quality of the evidence in court. You are still confusing the word 'evidence' with 'verifiable fact'.

If George-ananda claims to sees the legendary White Lady ghost at the Brookside Mansion that is evidence arguing for the existence of the White Lady ghost. Now a skeptic can legitimately debate the quality of the evidence (optical illusion, George-ananda is a known loony bird, etc.) but evidence does not have to be verifiable to be considered evidence. So everyone who says 'there is no evidence for the paranormal' doesn't understand what they are saying.

I agree that evidence doesn't have to be verifiable, but, when it isn't, it is invalid when used to support an argument. In debate anyone can make any claim for evidence. Verification, for this reason, is necessary to grant evidence actual value.

 

[Ouroboros]

If you are just expressing your beliefs, anything is fine. But, if you make a claim in opposition to another person's claim and are discussing the plausibility of both, then verifiable evidence is necessary for support, imho.

Proper support is necessary, sure, if you want to try to convince the other party. Agree.

I just don't see these forums to be proper debates though, just saying. There are no rules of order and no moderator/chairman to address. It's just a point I wanted to highlight.

It's interesting what constitutes as "support" though. Even scientific reports, facts, etc, on a forum are by the sheer nature of its format and medium very subjective. Even linking a scientific report is basically saying, "look, I trust these guys and believe what they're saying, and you should to." It all comes down, ultimately, to a person's trust.

 

[leibowde84]

Proper support is necessary, sure, if you want to try to convince the other party. Agree.

I just don't see these forums to be proper debates though, just saying. There are no rules of order and no moderator/chairman to address. It's just a point I wanted to highlight.

It's interesting what constitutes as "support" though. Even scientific reports, facts, etc, on a forum are by the sheer nature of its format and medium very subjective. Even linking a scientific report is basically saying, "look, I trust these guys and believe what they're saying, and you should to." It all comes down, ultimately, to a person's trust.

If someone decides to ignore experts in a certain field, they owe their opposition a specific and well-supported explanation for doing so.

 

[suncowiam]

I'll just add this comment.

I have to agree with q konn and quagmire. I have asserted that there is no god but cannot prove this. Through fundamental math and philosophy, I will never be able to reach the conclusion. Because there are too many variables with uncertainties that I will not be able to invalidate.

However, that line of reasoning is impractical for every day human existence. Science takes account of this by suggesting errors and boundaries to a problem. This is the subjective process. When one measures 10 foot, it will never exactly be 10 foot so one can assume reasonably that it is 10 foot with a margin of error. So back to the existence of God, I used the analogy of why I don't believe in other mystical beings. It is the same reason I don't believe in a purple eyed monsters, the easter bunny or santa claus. In our assumed boundaries being Earth, our dimension of space and time, our sample size of billions of people, and so on... No one has recorded evidence of these beings including God. It is not conclusive to the T given the margin of error and boundaries we have set in place. However, subjectively, I believe this is reasonable to assume hence the notion of logical inference as q konn stated.

Otherwise, if I believe in God, then why then don't I believe in super man or that other super hero that don't appear to any human beings but can change the course of time and space?

 

[George-ananda]

I agree that evidence doesn't have to be verifiable,

At least I got to you to completely reverse what you said in post #124 where you said: "Evidence must be verifiable, right?".

but, when it isn't, it is invalid when used to support an argument. In debate anyone can make any claim for evidence. Verification, for this reason, is necessary to grant evidence actual value.

Here I must disagree again. Human witnessing (even our own) by its very nature is not verifiable. But it has tremendous value when it holds up favorably to a an objective analysis for quantity, quality and consistency.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least I got to you to completely reverse what you said in post #124 where you said: "Evidence must be verifiable, right?".
Here I must disagree again. Human witnessing (even our own) by its very nature is not verifiable. But it has tremendous value when it holds up favorably to a an objective analysis for quantity, quality and consistency.

I've spent enuf time in court (never convicted!) to observe that evidence need not be verified.
But verification sure is useful.....especially compared to contradiction.

 

[leibowde84]

At least I got to you to completely reverse what you said in post #124 where you said: "Evidence must be verifiable, right?".



Here I must disagree again. Human witnessing (even our own) by its very nature is not verifiable. But it has tremendous value when it holds up favorably to a an objective analysis for quantity, quality and consistency.

I meant that valid evidence used to support a claim must be verifiable. In our own personal decision making, it is not necessary, but when you are in a discussion/debate with opposing claims, evidence is pretty much worthless unless verifiable. It is basically saying, "I have evidence, but it isn't verifiable, so you'll just have to take my word for it". This form of evidence is, imho, invalid and without value.

 

[George-ananda]

I meant that valid evidence used to support a claim must be verifiable. In our own personal decision making, it is not necessary, but when you are in a discussion/debate with opposing claims, evidence is pretty much worthless unless verifiable. It is basically saying, "I have evidence, but it isn't verifiable, so you'll just have to take my word for it". This form of evidence is, imho, invalid and without value.

In a debate we debate the quality of the unverifiable evidence. All evidence is not equal in an objective analysis of quantity, quality and consistency. That is what is done in criminal trials where there is almost never verifiable evidence. We consider the integrity of the witnesses, motivation to lie, etc.. And if the evidence is sufficient then the jury can determine guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' (which is not claiming verifiable proof). We use the same approach of considering all the evidence and argumentations from all sides when forming determinations all the time in life including the question of God's existence. One can claim (as I do) that paranormal things do occur 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Another can consider the evidence and argumentation and conclude differently; then we debate the quality, quantity and consistency of the evidence.

 

[Paranoid Android]

This is a nicely put argument (and of course I agree with it )

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists

No. That's all I'll say. No.

 

[leibowde84]

In a debate we debate the quality of the unverifiable evidence. All evidence is not equal in an objective analysis of quantity, quality and consistency. That is what is done in criminal trials where there is almost never verifiable evidence. We consider the integrity of the witnesses, motivation to lie, etc.. And if the evidence is sufficient then the jury can determine guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' (which is not claiming verifiable proof). We use the same approach of considering all the evidence and argumentations from all sides when forming determinations all the time in life including the question of God's existence. One can claim (as I do) that paranormal things do occur 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Another can consider the evidence and argumentation and conclude differently; then we debate the quality, quantity and consistency of the evidence.

But, the examples that you gave are all verifiable by objective supporting evidence. The "reliability of the witness", for example, can by verified by looking into the witnesses criminal history, whether they are getting something for their testimony, whether they have any kind of history with the defendant, whether the people they associate with see them as an honest person. Then, even the police have to pretty much ignore eye witness testimony unless it can be cooberated with verifiable procedures such as line-ups, forensic examination, etc.

 

[George-ananda]

But, the examples that you gave are all verifiable by objective supporting evidence. The "reliability of the witness", for example, can by verified by looking into the witnesses criminal history, whether they are getting something for their testimony, whether they have any kind of history with the defendant, whether the people they associate with see them as an honest person. Then, even the police have to pretty much ignore eye witness testimony unless it can be cooberated with verifiable procedures such as line-ups, forensic examination, etc.

You are actually agreeing with me but you are not seeing it. All evidence is judged on its quality and never with 100% certainty; so we talk in terms of 'reasonable doubt' and 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[leibowde84]

You are actually agreeing with me but you are not seeing it. All evidence is judged on its quality and never with 100% certainty; so we talk in terms of 'reasonable doubt' and 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No, you are agreeing with me. "Verification" in no way requires "absolute certainty". You use supporting evidence to convince the Judge/Jury/whoever that the witness trustworthy. But, no matter how insurmountable that evidence is, there is always a risk of deception.

 

[George-ananda]

No, you are agreeing with me. "Verification" in no way requires "absolute certainty". You use supporting evidence to convince the Judge/Jury/whoever that the witness trustworthy. But, no matter how insurmountable that evidence is, there is always a risk of deception.

Maybe I'll try putting it to you as an example. If I say I clearly once saw the ghost of a soldier in a civil war uniform; is that evidence for the existence of ghosts? I say yes, it is evidence for the existence of ghosts (but perhaps not compelling evidence to anyone else but me).