|
SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/26/2011 2:02:51 AM)
|
I will here repeat some concepts, maybe somebody finds something useful and it can serve as resume of what I have said.
Reason is based on data and deductions. With deductions, we find out new data from preexisting data. Deduction rules tell us how to deduce, for example "A or no-A" tells us that, if A is false, no-A must be true.
We are human beings, minds operating in a brain. We can always make mistakes. Please notice the "always": people saying that 2+2=4 cannot possibly wrong forget that they are thinking this. And thinking is a process which can contain errors. Descartes was wrong - it is not "I think, therefore I am". It is "something thinks, therefore something exists" and being extreme enough, even this assert can be challenged.
It is impossible to exclude every possible scenario where our data may be wrong, or our deductions may be wrong. Very usually, it is even impossible to calculate (with real math) how probable these scenarios are.
Therefore, for every assert we make, even the most simple ones, they can always be wrong. No matter how simple or obvious they are. No matter if they are based on data of the external world or data of our own brain, no matter if they are wrong because the data is wrong, or because the reasoning was wrong... we can always be wrong.
I wish tweakabelle would recommend people like Kirata to "consider the virtues of uncertainty", because it is him, not me, who is consider them too few. But tweakabelle self is not considering them as much as me, anyway...
When we are rational, this does not stops us from asserting things. We say "I have a nose" and "2+2=4" and "Santa does not exist". But we say it with an implicit part on it: "... or so I think, as long as I am not proven wrong". That is, as long as nobody shows me that my data was wrong and/or my deductions were invalid.
This is also made by the dumb asses who try to convince us that when we say "there is no God" we are implicitly saying "... and I know this will be the absolute truth forever, for I have seen the Light and will never change my mind no matter what". They try to "refute" our sentence "there is no God" using this extension we never added. Then they say "but it is implicit!".
==> At the same time, those hypocrites say many things, like "judges say this" or "the majority of people say that" and when somebody proves them wrong, they honestly admit it and carry on (sometimes). So, wait... was not "implicit" that they were saying this as "absolute truth forever, for they have seen the Light and will never change theirs mind no matter what"? Was not that "implicit" in every assert, as in "there is no God"? Or course it is not! But they pretend it with the asserts of the others while they reject it for their own. That's hypocrisy and an attempt to use the strawman's fallacy.
So... we we are rational, we do say "there is not God", "this is a table", "I have a nose", "There is no Santa" and "2+2=4" implicitly adding the clauses of reason: " or so I think, as long as I am not proven wrong". We just do not add it every time because it would be fucking annoying.
You don't believe me? Well, I think, as long as I am not proven wrong, that it would be what I, as long as I am not proven wrong, consider annoying in a degree which, I think, as long as I am not proven wrong, could be fucking high, and I also do (or believe I do, as long as I am not proven wrong) think (or what I consider "thinking", as long as I am not proven wrong) that if you would really try (or do what I, as long as I am not proven wrong, consider as "trying") you would also see it (or do what I, as long as I am not proven wrong, consider "to see").
Annoying.
And what about probabilities? Cannot we establish that 2+2=4 is just more probable as "God does not exist", for example? The problem is, well, we can't. Not using serious Theory of Probabilities, which is, I beg you, part of mathematics, and not the description of an intuitive belly "feeling" of what "seems" to be more "reasonable".
As long as we have one single demonstration, which tells us that A is true, and no logical, rational reason to think the contrary, we must carry on with the supposition that A is true. And say "A", implying "A, or so I think, a long as I am not proven wrong".
The last point in question here was, that a demonstration using Occams Razor can be a real demonstration. But there I defy anybody to return to the game and try to prove the contrary. I think they will fail (and win the game) because without Occams Razor, you cannot even affirm rationally that you have a nose.
If Occam's Razor is not a valid deduction rule, then you cannot say anything at all, because you cannot exclude all possible scenarios which render your assert wrong.
Therefore, it is a valid deduction rule. It is part of reason and we use it every day, even the people here who deny it in a formal discussion.
Be brave and consistent enough to use it also with God, and you will reach positive Atheism.
Best regards.
|
|
|
|
